Shanks Katrina: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shanks Katrina: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8771] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill which the National Party supports. The purpose of this bill is to repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act 1993 so as to allow women in the armed forces to participate in active combat roles. This bill removes the last endorsement of gender discrimination that exists in employment matters relating to the armed forces. It can be safely said that women have unlimited choice when it comes to selecting a career. Repealing section 33 of the Human Rights Act will only reinforce the perception that there is nothing a woman cannot do if given the opportunity. Given that 17 percent of all New Zealand defence force personnel are female and this number is growing year by year and given that there are now more women than men in New Zealand’s population I personally look forward to the day when the commander of defence forces is addressed by her subordinates as “madam” rather than sir.  
However if we look back for a moment to 1993 when the Human Rights Act was originally enacted we see that New Zealand Defence Force policy prohibited women from serving in what are termed the teeth arms: in the infantry battalions the armed regiment the artillery batteries or in the engineers as anything other than clerks in the quartermaster’s store or in the unit’s orderly room. Let us now fast-forward 7 years to 2000 when the Defence Force revised its rules regarding the prohibition on females serving in front-line services. In light of that policy shift this legislative change is well overdue. This bill started as a member’s bill but has been adopted as a Government bill. Although the bill is an attempt to keep abreast of modern times and ratifies a current situation it has in effect been outdated by Defence Force policy for 7 years. By any yardstick that we care to use the Defence Force has been far more progressive than this self-proclaimed progressive Government in ensuring that women have equal opportunities in a military career.  
Although the National Party is supportive of this Government bill and its intentions questions still need to be asked. For instance if it took this Labour-led Government 7 years to address this human rights anomaly and subsequent employment anomalies would we have to wait another 7 years under a Labour Government for New Zealand’s most foreign-decorated female combat veteran Nancy Wake to be given the honours she so richly deserves for her World War II service or to use this bill’s parlance “active combat service”? Given that Ms Wake is 94 years old I sincerely hope not. For that matter would contemporary female combat veterans have to wait 7 years for recognition of the combat service that this legislation will allow them to undertake?  
It almost goes without saying that women in all manner of employment add value to all of their respective places of work and that service with a combat-oriented unit or service in a combat zone will be no different in that regard. I mention that I would like to see the first female commander of defence forces or the first female Chief of Army a success that I am confident will eventually follow this law change although it must not be at the expense of existing or future standards. Standards should be based on competency not on race gender religious belief or any other factor.  
I would like to finish this call on a cautionary note. In this bill’s first reading we were told that New Zealand has a reservation relating to women serving in armed combat. Although the word “reservation” has been used in a more legal context it also has an implicit social context. We have only to look at the recent diplomatic tensions between the UK and Iran concerning British naval personnel who included a female naval rating to see some of the social and diplomatic problems that removal of the social reservation can generate. This is my caution to this Committee. Members should not think that this legislation merely adds to the raft of rights that we currently enjoy or that it merely corrects existing employment legislation. This bill has much wider implications than that and this Government and any future Government should be aware of that. Thank you. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.