Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

It is with great pleasure that I rise to take a call on the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. Although I absolutely support the bill because of its removal of discrimination against women in the armed forces, at the same time I also hope we never see an escalation of active combat roles for either women or men.

It is appropriate in debating Part 1 of this bill that as the bill moves towards becoming law we are also approaching Anzac Day, when we celebrate the contribution of those who have served in past conflicts—men and women. This year I will be marching with veterans and proudly wearing the medal of one of the women in my family who served in World War I. It has been wonderful to be given the medal and it is a great honour. Women in those days were restricted from combat roles, but we all know and acknowledge the significant contribution that women have made in our defence services over the past years.

It is interesting to talk with other women relatives about their war experiences. Of course, they hated war and the devastation it brought to families, but many women saw their experiences during war as liberating, which is kind of sad, I suppose. They found it liberating because they were able to perform roles and work that previously were restricted to men. Women excelled in those roles. Recently while I was in London I saw an exhibition about the construction of fighter jets during World War II. Every photo showed women operating complex machinery, on the planes fitting them out, and well in charge of this important war role. But they were not on the front line, of course.

Recruitment of women for the armed forces in New Zealand did not reach substantial numbers until August 1941 when 600 women were serving. The numbers then gradually increased until a peak figure of 8,700 was reached in August 1943, and thereafter women were gradually released. But in November 1945, 3,500 women were still serving in the New Zealand armed forces.

The participation of women in services during the last world war—and I hope we never have another one—released men for more active armed service, just as the entry of women into industry released men for tougher industrial assignments in the armed forces. Those women had great home ties, but those home ties were light enough to permit them to participate actively in the war effort. They did so by voluntarily replacing men in paid jobs that had been depleted of labour by recruitment for the forces.

I am looking forward to Anzac Day and to hearing stories and marching alongside women who played an important role in all the world conflicts we have been involved in. But as I said, may we never have to be in that position again.

Today it is very different. Women already play a full part in the operations of New Zealand’s Defence Force, and their contribution is both significant and highly valued. Part 1 of this bill builds on and validates career options for women, as well as advancing this Labour-led Government’s commitment to a society that is free from discrimination in all of its ugly forms, including discrimination on the basis of gender.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this

I rise to speak to the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill, which I support. This legislation started as a member’s bill but has now been changed to a Government bill. Although this bill keeps abreast of modern times in ratifying the current situation, the need for urgency is interesting indeed. The legislation has been out of date for 7 years; women have actually been allowed to go into combat for the last 7 years.

The purpose of this bill is to repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act 1993 in order to allow women employed in the armed forces to participate in active combat roles. This bill removes the last exemption for sexual discrimination in employment matters that applies to the armed forces. When the Human Rights Act was originally enacted, the New Zealand Defence Force’s policy was not to allow women to go into combat. However, for the past 7 years it has been the policy not to discriminate against women in the armed forces, so at last the Government is keeping pace with the department.

Currently, the provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan has 21 women out of 100 staff who are deployed there. They are doing a great job, and the law will finally give recognition to those roles now and in the future. The roles that women play in making up any working environment add value to all aspects of the workplace. I am sure that when women are overseas on combat duty, the contribution they make is outstanding.

Women in the past have played significant roles during times of war. Due to the area they were in, their contributions were limited to non-combat ones and normally to ones out of the Defence Force itself. But the roles they played were significant in the war effort. This step forward to allow women to enter active combat situations is one we can be proud of, as we break down the last barriers for women in New Zealand. The women in New Zealand’s armed forces have worked hard to get themselves into the situation where they are seen as equals in an area that has been male-dominated for a very long time. Many women who have now left the armed forces should be proud of the recognition that they have earned for other women who are now in active combat positions.

I must also highlight the issue that my colleague highlighted last week: the number of women in the armed forces. Women now have unlimited choices when it comes to selecting a career. Unfortunately, a career in the armed forces does not seem to be attracting the same number of women as men. That is interesting, considering there are more women in New Zealand than men. It now has to become a focus of concern that women are not entering the armed forces at the same rate as men. That needs to be addressed. In 2002 the overall percentage of female personnel in the New Zealand defence forces was 14.9 percent. In 2006 it was 16.5 percent. There now needs to be some accountability for the ratios that we have seen improving over the last 4 years by 1.6 percent—a rate that is below the improved rate in other industries. It is a challenge for us and for the defence forces to ensure that women want to enter this industry and to make it their career.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) Link to this

I appreciate the fact that tonight in the Chamber we seem to have the unanimous support of Parliament for the passage of this important legislation—the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. The point has been made that this is not law that is required to achieve equality of the sexes in our armed forces. We already have that; the provision of the defence forces already allows for that. I think the Chief of Defence Force made that decision some years ago, and back in 2002 it became operational. So the amendment to the Human Rights Act is something that can be addressed without changing the current arrangements; the current arrangements are simply reinforced by this legislation.

This legislation is important because it is going to remove a legislative discrimination. It is a statutory discrimination that exists on the statute book to protect something that is no longer required. Why does Parliament need to spend its time, at this stage, just reinforcing something that is allowed? The reason is a document that was tabled in Parliament today and that has now been referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—the national interest analysis for the removal of the reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

As New Zealand’s Minister of Women’s Affairs, I am very proud of the fact that I will be able to go to the United Nations—to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women—and present on behalf of the people of New Zealand that we are now fully compliant with the convention. I think it is a tremendous thing we are saying for a country that has offered leadership in respect of women’s affairs for such a long time, to the extent that we were the first country where women were eligible to vote, and that we are able to show leadership in this area, as well.

I want to tell the Committee what the text of the current reservation to the convention actually is. It reads as follows: “The Government of New Zealand, the Government of the Cook Islands and the Government of Niue reserve the right not to apply the provisions of the Convention insofar as they are inconsistent with policies relating to recruitment into or service in: (a) The Armed Forces which reflect either directly or indirectly the fact that members of such forces are required to serve on armed forces aircraft or vessels and in situations involving armed combat; or (b) The law enforcement forces which reflect either directly or indirectly the fact that members of such forces are required to serve in situations involving violence or threat of violence.” That is the reservation we currently have with respect to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. When this legislation is passed and the national interest analysis comes back from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, then New Zealand will have done everything that it was asked to do in respect of the convention.

It is important to remember what the Government was asked when it reported to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women for the fifth reporting period. The exact words from the committee, after considering New Zealand’s fifth report, were: “State Party is urged to expedite the steps necessary for the withdrawal of its remaining reservation to the Convention …”. So this legislation is us doing precisely what we were asked to do—to expedite the steps remaining to enable us to ensure that we can withdraw this remaining reservation to the convention.

When I think of what Parliament has been able to do on this occasion I really want to acknowledge the work of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Its members took this particular measure very seriously and came forward with some sensible recommendations about how the wording of the bill could be properly clarified in order to achieve the objectives we had set.

I want to reinforce again just how important the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is to New Zealand, and what New Zealand is adopting by accepting that in its entirety. The language that is often used is that the convention represents an international Bill of Rights for women, and I note one of my colleagues, Darien Fenton, used the expression that women’s rights were human rights. I heard a powerful women speaker at the Fourth World Conference on Women, in 1995 in Beijing. She was one Hillary Clinton, who I hope will be a President of the United States one day. She made the point very strongly that we cannot separate out women’s rights from human rights. Women’s rights are human rights. They are for the benefit of humanity and we cannot separate them, one from the other.

The whole point of incorporating the principle of equality of men and women in our legal system is to ensure that we do not have discriminatory laws, whether or not they are there, exercised in practice as is the case here. We actually do not want them, on the face of our laws, to be discriminatory. I think that this particular measure will reinforce how important our women are to our armed forces, and the fact that we have come a long way since 1993 when the Human Rights Act was passed and it included this particular provision.

I pay tribute to the Army, and to the defence forces generally. This is not simply a matter of saying that all will be equal, and that women will be able to undertake whatever role. In fact, the Navy had already opened the diving branch to women in February 2000, so it had already gone some way towards removing the last restricted trade within that service. For the Army, the issue was much more complex. It had to adopt a phased implementation—for example, equipment that was a strength barrier to women, or indeed to smaller men, was phased out when new equipment was being introduced along with other changes, such as accommodation. I know that the armed forces have also taken strong measures to ensure that there are no other forms of covert discrimination, such as harassment, including sexual harassment, within the armed forces, and it has certainly taken that role very, very seriously.

I pay tribute to all of our armed forces. They have come on board with wanting this to be—not, as an interjector said earlier, the right to serve on the front line—the right for women to have their engagement, involvement, and integration within the armed services respected for the equal role that they are able to provide. I am extremely pleased with this particular bill. I am very proud of the fact that I will be able to report this to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women itself when I appear before it sometime between 23 July and 10 August this year. I pay tribute also to Lynne Pillay, who brought this bill to the House as a member’s bill, then was willing to see it given up to the Government so that we were able to progress this measure in a way that we could get it passed in time. As members know, other members’ bills, under that particular timetable, have had to take a second role to the more controversial legislation covering a section 59 defence under the Crimes Act. Therefore, we needed to pull this bill forward, off the members’ schedule and on to the Government Order Paper in order to have it passed in time.

We are very keen to ensure that we are able to lift the reservation in time for New Zealand to report to the committee this year. I think Lynne Pillay has done a great thing by not only putting the matter on the Order Paper in the way she did, through a member’s bill, but also being willing to give it up to the Government so that we could get it passed in time. I certainly pay tribute to Lynne Pillay because she really has done us a great service in making sure that this matter has been brought to our attention and given the appropriate attention.

Finally, I think I have already mentioned the select committee, but I do want to pay tribute to it again. The select committee has done a great job in ensuring that we have the wording right. I think this is a very good example of when all parties can come together and support very good law.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

I am proud to stand here and support Part 1 of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. It is not a contentious bill. I understand that there were six submissions to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and one oral submission.

I will take just a short call on this bill. I have read through the speeches on Part 1 and Part 2, and everyone has said it all before. This bill is overdue. It sets right an anomaly in the Human Rights Act that discriminates against women serving in active combat. In actual fact, that has not been the policy at all in the armed forces for the last 7 years, so this bill is catching up with the practice of today. But it is better late than never.

I also take the time to talk about Nancy Wake. I know that my colleague Judith Collins has made a plea, as have other members of this Parliament, for this woman to be recognised. She is a very brave New Zealand woman, aged 94, who is living in the United Kingdom, but she is a New Zealander as she was born in New Zealand. It is women like Nancy whom we need to look up to and give accolades to. This bill, hopefully, will set the last hurdle so that women can participate fully in the armed forces, whether it be in the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force.

The bill rights an anomaly. It now allows us to follow modern practice and to be consistent with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The shame of the whole matter is that we should have had this bill long ago. It has taken 7 long years. I must congratulate Lynne Pillay, the Labour member, on taking on a member’s bill that has now been adopted by the Government.

I will stop at this point. There are other points that will be made by my colleagues, but certainly I would like to say that we support the bill and we will certainly talk to the other parts of the bill tonight.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this

This is a wonderful opportunity to be able to stand and support the Committee stage of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. It is also interesting to note that this bill appears to have support right across Parliament, because when I looked at the membership of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that heard the submissions on this bill, I was a little worried when I saw that the only woman member of the team of National MPs on that committee was replaced during its consideration of this bill. I thought that did not bode very well. However, I am pleased that what my perhaps naturally suspicious nature perceived was not indicative of the way that National intends to vote on this bill. I was pleased to hear Jackie Blue say that the National Party will be supporting this bill.

The bill has come through as a Government bill—it has been taken over—and the Minister spoke very well when she thanked our colleague Lynne Pillay, who put the bill forward as a member’s bill. It was drawn from the ballot, but because of the time frame that we were working to—to be able to endorse the requirements of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women—we were able to take it over as a Government bill and allow it to make hasty process through its stages. So here we are, debating the Committee stage.

It is of no surprise that a Labour Government bill deals with this legislative discrimination, because Labour, of course, is known for being very active on the issue of making sure that achievement is made by women, in all sorts of fields, in New Zealand. I will just put this into the context of the sorts of things that the Labour Government has achieved for women in this term alone—and this bill will continue in that vein.

In this term Labour has launched the Action Plan for New Zealand Women. It has expanded and improved the provisions of the paid parental leave scheme by increasing it to 14 weeks. It has also extended that scheme so that self-employed people are able to have paid parental leave, as well. Of course, the Working for Families package and improved access to early childcare and early childhood education are also significant achievements that affect all family members, but they have a particular impact for the women in families.

I take this opportunity to voice the hope that National, in supporting this bill, can also see its way clear to support those families who are looking forward to having the 20 hours of free early childhood education. I feel quite disappointed that the Opposition seems to want to goad providers in the sector into not allowing the provision of this 20 hours’ free early childhood education. If National really wanted to get in behind New Zealand women, then it would be supporting, encouraging, and wanting those providers to make sure that the 20 hours of early childhood education went ahead.

But to go back to the bill, it is good to see the across-the-board agreement of Parliament in respect of this particular bill. The bill will make sure that women can take a full part, as they already do—and I think a few speakers have spoken on that, but we are now fixing it up from a legislative perspective—in the operations of New Zealand’s armed forces. And, of course, their contribution is invaluable. The bill will build on and validate career options for women, who have progressed significantly since the integration of women into the New Zealand armed forces in 1977.

This bill honours a commitment to uphold and advance human rights that this Labour-led Government prides itself on. We have a belief in our society that discrimination on the basis of gender is a thing of the past, as is racial discrimination and age discrimination. If this amendment bill is passed—and it looks as though it will be—it will enable New Zealand to ratify its obligation under the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. This is New Zealand’s only remaining reservation to that convention. So I am happy to speak in the Committee stage in support of this part of the bill. Thank you.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this

As members on the Opposition side of the Chamber have indicated already, we do support the bill, and, indeed, we always have supported the bill. There was never any question that we would ever hold a different position. In truth, as we have well observed, the armed forces moved down this path many, many years ago. I remember the extensive debates that were held in the Navy, and the really difficult challenges it had in introducing true equality. Part of the challenge was about changing culture, and part of it was about changing accommodations and so forth on frigates. It was a challenge, but the Navy got through it. Now we see women service people throughout the world, literally. This Government has a very active policy of deploying forces across the world in the service of peace and stability, and the National Party has supported all of those deployments. None of those deployments could now be effectively made without the active participation of women, so this legislation is crucial.

I want to directly draw the Committee’s attention to clause 4—no one has referred to this clause, interestingly enough. It is actually at the heart of the bill. The words I refer people to are “in an active combat role”, which was a replacement for the words used when the bill was introduced, “at the front line”—a prosaic term. This demonstrates a real lapse on the part of the Government. This issue, which I have heard Sue Moroney talk about, was so hugely important to a Government that prides itself on these sorts of issues that for 7 years it simply let it languish. It had to be introduced by way of a member’s bill.

I have to remind the Committee that a National Government passed the Race Relations Act 1971 and the Human Rights Act 1993. We have been at the forefront of legislative efforts, and Jenny Shipley really drove that 1993 legislation; it was hugely important for changing the legal framework. But this Government let this issue languish in the hands of a member, and did not adopt it for 7 years.

That means, of course, that one gets not legal language but prosaic language such as “at the front line”, as opposed to what would be a more legalistic approach. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee picked up on this, as did the submissions from the armed forces, so “in an active combat role” was deemed to be much more appropriate terminology. I guess “at the front line” conjures up World War I and all of that. It does not actually reflect modern reality at all.

I will deal with the meaning of those words “in an active combat role”. What does that mean in practice? It means that women are able to serve in every single capacity in the armed forces, irrespective of the danger that those positions represent, and also, to use the term that the Army would use, “to close with and kill the enemy”. That phrase is in the Army’s doctrinal manuals. That is the term it uses for infantry soldiers. In practical terms, in short, we are asking as a nation that any of our citizens—men or women—who join our armed forces put themselves at enormous risk and, in certain circumstances, be willing to literally enforce the peace by the use of military force.

We should be under no illusions as to the significance of that. We should be conscious, when we are debating a bill like this, as to what the significance of it is. It is all very well to embellish it through terms such as human rights, equality, and so forth—and those are important values—but this is a bit different from most of the legislation we pass in relation to rights of people. Nevertheless, this legislation is necessary, because, in truth, that is the decision women are making when they join the armed forces. They are making conscious decisions, and they know that in most practical situations the contemporary enforcement of peace and stability will not usually involve the use of military force.

Indeed, I think that that is a good thing. I have the highest of praise for the work that has been done in the Solomons, in East Timor, and in Afghanistan. The contemporary environment in respect of the use of our military forces is, desirably, not the classic approach of using fighter jets, aircraft, and all of that; it is actually about changing the way that people think in those countries. One does that by way of an active engagement with those people. Certainly, these are risky situations. One does not have to build peace in a peaceable country; one has to build peace only in a country that knows conflict. But I believe, and we know from experience, that raw military force is ultimately not the pathway to do that. To change the minds of people by the force of example is a more effective approach, and we can see that in the way that our armed forces have been deployed in recent years.

I refer specifically to a decision made by Don McKinnon, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and it was a political decision; members should make no mistake about that—to deploy our forces into Bougainville in 1994 without weapons. That was done very, very deliberately to send a cultural message that the solution to the problem in Bougainville then was not through the use of military force. Yes, it required trained military people who were used to dealing with tensions and issues of conflict, but we actually had to change the culture there. That has been the case in East Timor and the Solomons, and with the provincial reconstruction team. Sometimes, of course, the threat of military force is necessary as part and parcel of that, but it is not inherent on it.

The reason I am spending a bit of time on this point is because it reflects the contemporary change in peacemaking and peace-enforcement. I guess I would say to our American friends and our British allies in Iraq that there are lessons to be learnt in that; that the pathway in Iraq is, in fact, building a cultural change to break that cycle of violence. We know that that will be a big challenge. I know the Government knows that it will be a big challenge, but it is necessary. I know that Winston Peters, in not condemning the troop surge—when he was put on the spot, one might say—understood the need to change the culture in there and saw the surge as perhaps providing some of the conditions that would enable that to take place. That is why he would say he wishes them well, and why we would say that. I guess that, in truth, that is why the Government did not really disagree with him. It could see that everyone wants a good outcome there and that that will involve changing circumstances.

The role of women in the contemporary armed forces will be hugely important and will be part and parcel of that. I know from what people have said that having women in the Solomons was very, very important in being able to reach out to people, because of the experiences that women bring to those difficult situations. One cannot keep women isolated in certain roles. If they can fill every role, they have the best opportunity to reach out. So I did want to put those points on the record, because it reflects a changing philosophy in the use of armed forces, which is, I think, a good one.

National is very supportive of this. We are particularly supportive of the way this bill has been redrafted. We really appreciated the submissions from the armed forces to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. It gave us a really good insight into the contemporary nature of the use of military forces in difficult areas in the world, and how one changes the cultures of those countries by example in order to build the culture of peace in those countries

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) Link to this

It is my pleasure, as Minister of Defence, to speak in favour of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill, which I think is a significant bill in terms of its formal recognition of the role and the place of women within our New Zealand Defence Force. I welcome the fact that this bill, introduced by my colleague Lynne Pillay and now taken over by the Minister of Women’s Affairs, removes the last exemption for sexual discrimination in employment matters applying to the armed forces. I think we can celebrate that fact.

The bill provides legislative recognition of a situation that already exists in practice, which is that women in the Defence Force can and do participate in active combat roles. I am very proud of the fact that over the last 7 or 8 years as I have travelled around, first as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and now as Minister of Defence, visiting New Zealand’s deployments internationally I have seen women in all facets of the work that our Defence Force is performing.

I remember, I must confess, something that slightly staggered me. When I hopped on an Iroquois helicopter in Timor-Leste in 2000 the situation was still quite difficult on the ground and we had machine-gunners wearing helmets in full combat gear on either side of the helicopter. When we got to the destination on the other side—we had flown from Dili down to Suai—we disembarked from the helicopter. The machine-gunner on my side of the helicopter had taken their helmet off and there was this head of blonde hair, and it was one of our women service personnel. I suppose that was a very practical example of the way women are, and should be, taking on those sorts of roles. I have seen women deployed in Afghanistan, East Timor, and in the Solomon Islands, and they are participating as full members of the Defence Force without any thought that gender can or should be a matter that affects the role they are carrying out.

I guess this bill is a demonstration of just how far the House has come over the last decade and a half. Fourteen years ago the Justice and Electoral Committee—and, I must add, before I was a member of that committee—stated in a report on the Human Rights Bill: “The Government”—that was the then National Government—“will not commit women to combat until it can be demonstrated that a clear, well-established, and informed social consensus for involving women in combat exists.” That was just 14 years ago, and clearly we have moved a very long way since then. I believe that that was an excessively cautious and conservative statement, and I am very pleased that in 2000 we formally rescinded the policy in the Defence Force of not allowing women to serve in combat roles. Women now routinely participate in deployments where there is potential for them to take part in combat, and, of course, as a co-requisite of that, potential for them to suffer injury or even death in service of their country. We work very, very hard today in the modern defence force to prevent any loss of life or injury on the part of our service people. We work hard to maximise their safety, but we see no reason to discriminate on the basis of gender in terms of whom we commit to undertaking operational tasks within the services.

Servicewomen today currently make up just under 17 percent of our regular forces, around 23 percent of the Navy—that comes at the top in terms of moving towards a greater gender balance—14 percent of the Army, and 17 percent of the Air Force. Around 9 percent of our servicewomen are presently in combat roles. There are, for example, over 80 servicewomen deployed in land-based operations around the world, and well over 80 serving on board our Royal New Zealand Navy ships. Indeed, it would not be possible today to maintain the operational effectiveness of our Defence Force without the contribution of women in those roles. With that full integration today, I am yet to hear any criticism in any of the services that women are in any way less effective in carrying out their roles than their male colleagues.

This bill is, therefore, very welcome recognition of that role, and it is, as I mentioned earlier, to a large extent after the event. It will bring the law into line with what is currently the policy and the practice of the Defence Force. With its passage New Zealand will be able to satisfy our country’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The reservation relating to the armed forces and women is New Zealand’s only reservation to the convention. Indeed, back in 2003 the committee urged New Zealand to expedite the steps necessary for the withdrawal of this reservation, and with the passage of this legislation we will be able to do that.

I am proud that we can now do this. I am proud that we live in a country where women are now enabled to play a full and equal role in all facets of our society, and the Defence Force is not, and should not, be an exception to that.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) Link to this

I felt motivated to take a brief call by, firstly, one or two of the comments made during the bill’s second reading and, secondly, by some of the comments made by members from the Government side in the first part of the Committee stage. However, there was a touch of realism in the comments made by the previous two speakers, the Hon Phil Goff and my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp.

As the Hon Phil Goff pointed out, this bill codifies in statute what has been the practice for some time and it is appropriate that we do that. National concurs with his comments that women play an important part in the armed services and should be there based on their ability to perform the role, not on their gender. National supports that.

I will make two further points. In listening to the speeches in the second reading and in the earlier part of the Committee stage, I felt that the comments about symbolism were not in the real world. It may be symbolic for some people that we embrace women into these particular roles that they are doing, but the reality is that there is an element of danger in the armed services. Right now we have not had to report any fatalities in this House; indeed, we have very seldom had to report significant injuries. But, in reality, the armed forces from time to time are called to be not peacekeepers but peacemakers, and in those instances they are in the theatre of war where there is significant danger.

Those people who spoke—and I see Darien Fenton, who made a contribution, is here—need to be aware that the people in our armed forces in general are at significant risk, and that should not be understated. Although we may be doing a symbolic thing here, we need to be conscious of the fact that from time to time there are significant dangers. Those members who have seen films that we do not really identify with, like Saving Private Ryan, will know that that sort of thing can be the reality of war, and at some time in the future it may well be. That is when the people in our armed forces will be at risk, including women who are in the services.

I find it a little bit ironic that this bill talks about the front line. Certainly, we can identify a front line in the Army, and at times that is hand-to-hand stuff or it can be a range of things. In the Navy the front line is a little more distant, and in the Air Force it does not now exist because our strike force is gone and it is hard to imagine where the front line is in the Air Force. That raises another issue about who might provide air cover for our women when they are on the ground in the armed forces.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) Link to this

I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been made. The first point I want to make quite clearly is that no one on this side of the Committee has said that the deployment of women in active combat roles is symbolic. The issue around symbolism is removing the exemption in the Human Rights Act, which is no longer required because we do not have any exemption requirements in the Defence Force because of the move it made in the year 2000.

The comment has been made that that change to the defence regulations was made by Defence Force order in 2000. I should say that it did not have immediate impact, either, which is part of the reason why this is not a 7-year delay in terms of responding to requirements. In fact, when that Defence Force order was first made it was felt that it would take up until 2005 before finally all the positions that were available to men, where there had been a barrier to women taking up those different trades and roles within the Army, would be able to be fully integrated. That was part of the reason why no hurry was given to removing that particular part of the Human Rights Act.

Another point was made about the bill starting off as a member’s bill. I think it is actually a positive that an individual member has brought a particular measure to the House. I do not think that it in any way belittles the measure or says it is any less important because a member of the House, rather than the Government, has brought it to the attention of the House. In fact, I know perfectly well, with the example a member used—that a National Government led the way with the Human Rights Act in 1993—a significant feature of the debate on that legislation, because I was in Parliament at the time and in fact was a member of the select committee that looked at that particular bill, was that the two controversial aspects of that bill, which were the removal of discrimination based on sexual orientation and infections in the body capable of causing disease, which is the HIV anti-discrimination provisions, were both introduced by Supplementary Order Paper under the name of Katherine O’Regan as a private member, not as a member of the Government. So sometimes these things require a private member to bring them to the attention of Parliament, and I do not think they are in any way diminished as a result of that particular process being used.

Apart from those comments, I am very pleased with the way the debate has gone. I think that people have participated in a very positive and constructive way. I know that all New Zealand women will feel particularly proud that this year we will be able to report to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women that we have removed the last remaining reservation as a result of the passage of this bill.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this

I stand not as a New Zealand woman but as a New Zealand man, and I am immensely proud that the women of this country will be able to report that finally we comply with the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. As a citizen of this country I stand proud that we are finally addressing some of the basic issues of discrimination that have remained right through to the 21st century.

Members who have spoken before me were correct when they said the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill removes an anomaly. The members were also correct when they said the bill reflects the changing philosophy of the armed forces and the changing status quo. But the bill is not really about gender nor about allowing women to do this or that; it is a bill about human rights. In that respect, the Minister was correct when she said it is a bill that is symbolic.

The symbolism of this bill is that it is a clear statement to every person in this country that he or she has the right as a citizen to participate fully in the affairs of his or her family, community, and country. It is irrelevant whether that participation involves elements of danger, risk, or hazard. That is totally irrelevant. The basic requirement of every citizen, no matter how capable or incapable, old or young, rich or poor, and advantaged or disadvantaged, is to participate in the life of this country, in the life of every community, and in the life of every family.

This bill is important because, 14 years after the Human Rights Act was passed and 30-odd years after New Zealand human rights legislation was first introduced into Parliament, we are recognising that the minutiae of human rights still has a long tail. The human rights provisions are the most basic moves we can pass in this Committee. We spend a lot of our time on economic matters and on matters of self-interest and personal profit to a few. But the bottom line is that those things are irrelevant. We all walk this earth just once, and when we leave this earth we should leave it with rights equal to every other person in this country.

This Committee must be vigilant to ensure that every individual has an equal opportunity to participate fully in the affairs of this country. We must do away with the hegemony and patronising attitudes of those who say that some areas of life are difficult or dangerous. That is a decision for an individual to make, whether they be male, female, or indeterminate. The future of this country is with every individual participating fully in our communities.

I join with the Minister Lianne Dalziel in celebrating the symbolism of this simple bill—simple in that it enjoys the elegance of brevity. I simply commend the bill to the Committee. I am delighted that it is being passed unanimously, but we should not let it go by without looking at the higher principle involved: that it is a celebration of human rights. There is no greater principle that this Committee can adhere to than the human rights of every citizen in this country—

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this

New Zealand First supports the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. The bill is definitely not contentious; it is long overdue, and it is about time the law actually reflected the status quo.

We know that many women want to, and already do, participate in the armed forces in all sorts of roles, whether they be pilots, soldiers, sailors, or whatever. They are already there. Many of them are already in active combat roles, and, of course, they should be able to continue in those roles if they so desire.

We need to ensure that opportunity exists for women to participate fully in the armed forces. We already know that the rigours of war are both physically and mentally challenging. Women have already shown that they can participate fully in that respect. We must have the highest praise for those women—and men—who participate in the peacekeeping forces overseas and within the armed forces. We know that women have made a significant contribution in active combat roles, and they will continue to do so. That is what we want to see.

The number of women is increasing in all parts of the armed forces, and we wish them well in the roles they carry out so successfully. New Zealand First supports this bill.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this

I would like to pursue and follow on from some of the comments made by my colleagues Lianne Dalziel and Russell Fairbrother, and to look at the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill in its human rights context.

With New Zealand being one of the three nations in the world without a written constitution, one could argue that we were born of a human rights document—a brief and very blunt document—dating back to 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi, and that a lot of the development of the law in this nation has drawn from that experience.

We can then flick forward to 1945, when the world started to develop its own human rights standards. As my colleague Russell Fairbrother mentioned, it was in 1972 that race relations legislation was actually put into domestic law. It took nearly 30 years from New Zealand acceding to international human rights norms to its actually developing its own domestic law.

The Human Rights Commission Act followed the race relations legislation in 1977, whereby gender equality first became an issue in New Zealand law. So it will actually have taken 30 years from when this Parliament voted that women should essentially enjoy equal rights in our nation, until we finally complete that process. As we heard from the Minister of Women’s Affairs this evening, we can now fully accede to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The Minister will be going to the United Nations later this year in order to give effect to that.

If we go forward from the Human Rights Commission Act, the next focus of debate was on the groups that were left out. Throughout the 1980s there was one significant attempt to add sexual orientation as a ground in the Act. That attempt failed at the same time as homosexual activity was decriminalised in 1986. The legislation to add a number of grounds to the Human Rights Commission Act, including disability, then came in in 1990. It is of no little symbolism that only last weekend the Minister for Disability Issues, Ruth Dyson, was in New York, celebrating both the fact that the world has now developed treaty standards in relation to disability discrimination and that New Zealand is an extraordinary leader in that field.

It was not until 1993—which is only 14 years ago—with the passing of the Human Rights Act, again by this Parliament, that we actually guaranteed that people with disabilities should not face discrimination because of that disability. I want to mention one point in terms of that debate. At that time I was doing some research work for the New Zealand AIDS Foundation. There was a real fear at that stage that both the armed forces and the police would be given an exemption from the legislation. It is not unusual in other countries for human rights standards to be brought in stage by stage. I remember researching, and producing in some detail, arguments that became part of the AIDS Foundation’s submission at the time of that legislation. Former members Warren Kyd and John Banks did not inspire great confidence in the wider community that there would not be an attempt to build discrimination into law.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

Thank you—

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

I am delighted to have the opportunity to rise, however briefly, in support of Part 2. In the wider context of this legislation, I think it is clear that everyone in the Committee supports the bill. It is delightful to see that we have such unanimity, which is so unusual. But it is unanimity around an issue that is so important in terms of the human rights of New Zealanders. However, I must observe that in terms of the industrial legislative framework, one cannot escape the delicious irony that in respect of this provision there is a degree of inconsistency on the opposing benches in relation to the funding agents.