CHAPTER 3. The Growing Strength of Pressure Politics 1950–56

The early 1950s saw the rapid growth of the PSA equal pay campaign as influential PSA personalities encouraged existing committees and inspired the formation of new ones. At the same time, however, the opposition of the Public Service Commission intensified.

In July 1952 100 public service women met in Wellington to consider the equal pay campaign. The meeting was organised by Gerald Griffin, Secretary Organiser of the Wellington section, and Margot Jenkins, a member of the Management Committee of the Wellington section. Those present unanimously agreed to support 'the rate for the job' and expressed dissatisfaction over salary bars. They recommended that the PSC set up an investigating committee of equal numbers of men and women to report on all positions held, and following the meeting the PSA Executive Committee supported the desire of the Wellington Women's Sub-Committee to prepare and present submissions to the PSC in support of their views. The matter was taken up later in the campaign.

The stimulus for this meeting may have come from the publicity surrounding the Pan-Pacific Women's Conference which was held in Christ-church in January of 1952. (Conferences of the organisation had been held in a variety of Pacific countries on four occasions since 1924, and the New Zealand branch consisted of representatives from a wide cross section of women's organisations.) Twelve main countries were represented and discussion centred around the status, rights and role of women. Speeches of the various delegates were reported at length in newspapers throughout New Zealand and readers learnt that equal pay existed in Burma, Indonesia, Philippines, Ceylon and Vietnam. The situation in New Zealand and Australia was summed up in one newspaper: 'It seems that Australia and New Zealand are among the few countries where equal work is not rewarded by equal pay.'¹

In April 1953 the Wellington Women's Sub-Committee called another meeting attended by over 100 women. They were addressed by Dr Bill Sutch who spoke about the nature of economic equality, pointing out that equal pay and opportunity were not the only requirements — society in general must desire equal job performance by women. Part of the answer, he felt, was to educate more people to realise this.

The campaign gained momentum when, in July 1953, a further meeting of 127 women members was held. They decided it would be helpful to gain the page 36 support of women public servants in other centres, so Catherine Forde and Miss P. Martin, the women representatives on the Executive Committee, addressed meetings in other main centres. In October 1953 they spoke to women public servants in Christchurch, Timaru and Dunedin and at the Christchurch and Dunedin meetings the women resolved to support action already taken to remove the promotion bar (initial maximum) for women in the clerical division.

In her report Catherine Forde gave special mention of the support given to her and Miss Martin by the men in the service 'who have for so long championed our cause'.² She referred to their attendance at meetings, their willingness to serve on committees and their contribution to the Public Service Journal. She also referred to the 1951 General Conference of the ILO which adopted the convention calling for equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. An accompanying recommendation said that 'as a first step, equal pay should be made the rule in government employment'.³ She ended by referring to the attitude of the governments and MPs, who 'have never failed to give wholehearted support to the equal pay principle, but when you suggest their putting it into practice immediately you see the Hyde boiling up in the Jekyll.'⁴

While women public servants were publicising their cause, activities were taking place in other areas. In 1953 the Arbitration Court set a lower limit for women than men in its new 10 percent wage increase and the Government Service Tribunal passed this on to public servants.⁵ This provoked protest action by the PSA, the Business and Professional Women's Federation and the Association of Scientific Workers who felt that, in applying for this increase, the PSC had gone against the principles stated in their 1946 report. In his submissions to the tribunal Jack Turnbull (General Secretary of the PSA 1944–61) argued that it was contrary to the Public Service Act and beyond tribunal powers. Later in 1954 the PSC and PSA were successful in a joint application to the tribunal to restore the former relativity of women's rates to men's.⁶ In 1954, too, the Arbitration Court dropped the breadwinner wage in one of its cases and never reverted to it.⁷

From 1954 onwards the movement for equal pay became more planned and powerful. The Labour Party began to take a more positive stand on the issue of equal pay, its 1954 manifesto promising 'Encouragement of a progressive reduction in the margins of pay between men and women until the ideal of equal pay for equal work for the job is attained.'⁸

In October 1954, following the initiative of Jim Winchester, a member of the Wellington section, it was resolved at a general meeting of public servants in Wellington to launch a further campaign for equal pay. It was also decided to approach the Executive Committee with proposals for a publicity campaign, the setting up of a sub-committee of the executive as a channel for women members and the establishment of equal pay committees in all sections. The resolutions also included suggestions about involving other organisations and lobbying MPs.⁹

In response to the request of the executive officers Jack Turnbull prepared a report on PSA action on equal pay for the executive meeting in November 1954, in which he stated that the Wellington resolution 'docs not grapple with page 37

Postal sorting and library work were, in these years, among the many work areas dominated by Women. Alexander Turnbull Library

page 38

Jack Turnbull, General Secretary of the PSA 1944–61, made a major contribution to the fight for equal pay.

or even recognise the real problems which have to be faced'.¹⁰ He saw a conflict between PSA demand for an improved clerical scale with a higher automatic maximum, and demands for the abolition of the initial maximum. Turnbull claimed that if women stayed on the initial maximum and there was a higher automatic maximum, the relative position of men and women would be worsened. If the initial maximum was abolished it was impractical to aim for a lengthened clerical scale as women would have to be lifted to a higher automatic maximum than the present Class VI.

He also pointed out that although there had been a few able and active women in the campaign, the men in the association and the staff had, over the years, contributed more. He recommended that the association take a gradual course of action, with the preparation of a case for the tribunal, a conference of interested organisations and pressure on the government for improved family allowances. His report was referred by the executive to sections for comment and distributed to members as a supplement to the PSA Newsletter.

(In the 1940s Turnbull had supported the view that payments for dependants should be separate from wages. He was dissatisfied, however, with what he saw to be inadequate payments under the newly introduced child benefit scheme and so did not initially support the introduction of equal pay if the child benefit was to remain at its existing rate. This was in accordance with his strong belief that the depressed class in New Zealand was represented by mothers at home bringing up children.)

Women met more frequently the following year, became better organised and made constructive plans for positive action. On 10 February 1955, a lunch-time meeting called by the Wellington Section Committee of the PSA was attended by nearly 200 women who unanimously agreed to support any attempts to introduce equal pay and opportunity and end discrimination against women in the public service. A provisional sub-committee of 12 was formed with the aim of organising a campaign to make proposals to the PSA Executive Committee. Margot Jenkins, who in 1954 had become the first woman to take page 39

Margaret Brand was known as 'Miss Firebrand' by those who opposed her.

a seat on the executive committee as a section representative (Palmerston North), was elected secretary. Lettie Allen, who was very active in the Labour Party, was elected to the chair. Cath Eichelbaum,^† who had first become a section committee delegate (Maori Affairs) and member of the Wellington Women's Sub-Committee in 1952, was also elected. It was at this stage that Margaret Brand^† became actively involved in the equal pay movement. Elected as a member of this sub-committee, she took a leading role in the pressure politics campaign which developed, becoming known as 'Miss Firebrand' among those who opposed her. Looking back she says, 'I didn't actually know enough about the rules of meeting procedure to say I didn't want to be on the Committee. I was absolutely rooted to the ground with horror. I didn't know how to get out of it. ... From then on there were vacuums all the way and I slipped into them.'¹¹

Partly through the pressure of this sub-committee in the next few months, the PSA Executive Committee agreed to hold a conference on 3 August and to invite women delegates from the major sections. They also decided to press for the removal of existing salary bars for women in the clerical and general page 40 divisions and the determination of seniority by year of appointment to the grade. They gave support to the publicity campaign of the executive equal pay sub-committee, and in April 1955 30,000 pamphlets entitled Equal Pay and Equal Opportunity were widely circulated among PSA members.

Balanced scales symbolise the equal pay message in this 1955 PSA pamphlet.

On the other side of the fence, the PSC was preparing its annual report, which it presented on 1 July 1955. It included these words: 'the principle of equal pay for women had a certain appeal on the grounds of equity, though too often advanced emotionally as another step forward in the emancipation of women.'¹² The PSC further claimed that if rewards were related solely to the value of the work, then equal pay was already in existence. It referred to the social element in men's wages providing for the maintenance of dependants which, if excluded, would mean the rates of pay for men and women would be the same. It concluded by claiming that the question was a matter of high policy for the government and that it would be an abuse of power for the PSC to make such a significant move in the country's economic processes. While accusing women of taking an emotional angle in demanding equal pay, the PSC could hardly claim not to be doing likewise. To oppose equal pay on the grounds of the social wage amounted to an emotional appeal to New Zealand citizens who were clinging to the traditional belief that the man was the sole breadwinner in the family.

A few weeks after the PSC had presented its report, the question was raised in Parliament. On 20 July 1955, Ethel McMillan (Labour, North Dunedin) raised the question of equal pay when she asked the Prime Minister, Sidney Holland, to consider allocating time to discuss its introduction into the public service. Holland avoided the question by referring to the PSC policy of maintaining fair relativity with average ruling rates outside the public service. William Fox (Labour, Miramar) spoke of his attendance at the ILO Conference in Geneva in 1950, where he had been appointed a member of a committee set up to discuss equal pay. In general, workers' delegates were in favour of it and employer delegates opposed to it. Fox claimed he was well aware of the difficulties involved in applying the principle throughout industry but saw no reason why the government could not take the initiative in introducing it into the public service; if the government gave the lead, the principle could later be applied to industry.¹³ On 29 July Arnold Nordmeyer (Labour, Island Bay) referred to recent agitation for equal pay, which, he claimed, 'has complete support on this side of the house.'¹⁴ The issue of equal pay was to be raised again in Parliament following the equal pay conference of August 1955.

The Women's Conference which took place on 3 and 4 August 1955, although 'national', included representatives from only seven PSA sections — Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Hamilton, Palmerston North and Hawke's Bay. There was also strong representation from the nursing, dental nursing and mental hygiene groups. Organisation was carried out by the three members of the Equal Pay Committee of the Executive — Joyce McBeath, Margot Jenkins and Margaret Brand. Dawn Bennie, a PSA employee, was their secretary. One of the most important preparations for the conference was the paper written (at the request of the PSA) by Bill Sutch on the economic effects of equal pay. Sutch, now an economist for the Department of Industries and Commerce, also gave valuable behind-the-scenes advice to members of the Equal Pay Committee, regarding conference preparation.

The meeting, opened by PSA President Mike Mitchell and chaired by Joyce McBeath, was addressed by George Bolt, Chairman of the PSC, who opened page 42

Delegates at the first PSA Women's Conference held in August 1955.

his speech by describing the demand for equal pay as 'an attractive rallying cry as it had an element of natural justice'.¹⁵ He felt, however, that the PSC had to look further than this. Firstly he examined the question of social responsibility, speaking of the allowance made in a man's wage which enabled him to support a wife and possibly children; the single man was the married man of tomorrow who should be given opportunities to prepare for the setting up of a home. He recognised the fact that some women had family responsibilities and felt that in special cases additional amounts could be paid to women in this position.

Secondly, he spoke about 'payments for potential'. He began by referring to a recent newspaper article which claimed that an employee served in three successive stages during employment. He was first an investment of his employer, then a possession of his employer and finally an asset of his employer. Using these criteria, Bolt claimed that very few women remained for recruitment of the third stage. It was this, he said, which motivated employers to give boys more responsibility, since the average cost of training a boy would spread over 40 years, whereas it would not be likely to spread beyond 10 years for a girl. It was also significant, he felt, that women were allowed to retire earlier on superannuation. When asked why he supported lower pay for women Bolt said, 'Why should we pay 10/- for an article we can get for 5/-?'¹⁶ As Cath Kelly remembers, 'Bolt set the place alight. We quoted that up and down the country.'¹⁷

Bolt then moved on to discuss the position within the public service. He said that, in asking the PSC to pay women men's rates, the PSA was asking the state to pay more than the market rate of labour. He claimed that this could only be achieved through taxation and reminded the PSA that some of the taxpayers would be women industrial workers who did not receive equal pay but would be compelled to contribute to the equal pay enjoyed by women public servants only. He then went on to speak about the scale of equal pay. Equal pay, he claimed, was not a public service problem but a national one, to be solved nationally.

Finally Bolt referred back to the question of family responsibilities, acknowledging the change in attitude of the Arbitration Court when it dropped the (concept of the social wage in a case in 1954. He claimed, however, that the differential between men's and women's rates in the public service had decreased and that the existing gap could not be called an injustice.

Two women working with microfilm equipment at the Alexander Turnbull Library in 952. Alexander Turnbull Library

In his report Bill Sutch claimed that the granting of equal pay to men and women in the clerical and other divisions of the public service would cause 'only a ripple in New Zealand's economic affairs'.¹⁸ He felt that the country need not be concerned on economic grounds even if similar action was taken in private business; examination of the facts showed that the concept of a social wage was breaking down. Many of the arguments expressed by George. Bolt were challenged and undermined by Bill Sutch's 14-page report. This, circulated at the conference, gave an outline of the effects on New Zealand's economy of the introduction of equal pay, presenting statistical evidence to page 44 show that the majority of men did not have responsibility for children as they had no children — in 1951, quite apart from the single man, 46 percent of married men and widowers had no dependent children.¹⁹ Sutch referred to the Minimum Wage and the Arbitration Laws which no longer made any reference to an adult wage covering the minimum needs of a man, wife and a specified number of children. 'Our law makers,' he claimed, 'have anticipated equal pay by no longer recognising the social element in men's pay.'²⁰

Child allowance, he said, indicated a means of handling additions to income because of dependent children. He referred to the question of equal opportunity, claiming that women were capable of contributing economic gain to industry. This, of course, would depend on eliminating prejudice against the employment of women in many occupations and the provision of opportunities to enable women to receive proper training. He also argued that it was necessary to provide better childcare facilities and maternity and nursing leave. 1 The difficulties in the way of equal pay, he said, were social rather than economic. Sutch's views were generally accepted by those at the conference. His paper had been leaked to Truth, which gave it a good general coverage, but the PSC withdrew it from circulation and demanded that all copies be handed back to them.

In November 1955 Truth comments on Bill Stitch's report on the possible economic effects of equal pay.

The conference also voiced its support for Article 23 of the United Nations Human Rights Declaration supporting equal pay and asked for ratification by the New Zealand government of the Convention on Equal Remuneration adopted by the ILO Conference in 1951. A further resolution stated the belief that equal pay was a national rather than a local problem and, as such, should be discussed with all state service organisations, trade union bodies and other interested groups such as the YWCA, the NCW, the Registered Nurses' Association and the Business and Professional Women's Association, with a view to co-operation. It was further resolved that discrimination prevented the entry of many women into the service and provided no incentive for those already there to utilise their full potential, which resulted in a lowering of morale and efficiency. The conference further supported equal pay on the grounds that it would be in the interests of both sexes since it would prevent the formation of a pool of cheap labour in the lower grades of the public service.

On 5 August 1955 members of the Executive Equal Pay Committee met three of New Zealand's four women MPs at Parliament. Left to right: Edith McMillan (Labour, North Dunedin), Margot Jenkins, Mabel Howard (Labour, Sydenham), Joyce McBeath (leader of the PSA delegation), Margaret Brand, Dawn Bennie and Hilda Ross, the minister responsible for the welfare of women and children.

Important recommendations of the meeting were: that the PSA request the PSC to set up a committee on which the PSA would be represented to correct anomalies in salaries; that sections which had not already done so set up equal pay sub-committees to consider addressing trade unions, service organisations and similar bodies; that members should approach their local MPs with a view to obtaining their support, and take advantage of every opportunity to publicise the matter in newspapers, on radio and at public meetings. Departmental representatives were urged to encourage women to take every opportunity to exercise their right of appeal. Further, section secretaries, departmental representatives, and section equal pay sub-committees were requested to cooperate in collecting evidence of individual or group cases of women employed on the same basis as men. It was decided that the PSA would take a deputation to MPs asking them to persuade the PSC to abolish sex discrimination in the public service, and also that the PSA would write to every MP informing them of existing action and requesting active support in the House of Representatives.

In retrospect, Cath Kelly feels that the opposing views held by George Bolt and the women which surfaced at the conference were held in society generally: 'Most people wouldn't have said, "If we can get them for less, we'll pay them less", but many people, men and women, did believe that a man has got to support a family. This was still very common in the fifties. We had to show that many men didn't support families.'²¹

The next day, after the conference, the Executive Equal Pay Committee set the example by discussing the case for equal pay in the service with three of the four women Members of Parliament. The PSA deputation consisted of Joyce McBeath, Margaret Brand, Margot Jenkins and Dawn Bennie; the women MPs were Hilda Ross (National), and Mabel Howard and Ethel McMillan (Labour). The deputation felt that they were given a most co-operative hearing and that the meeting was a promising move in the campaign.

On 26 August 1955 the issue of equal pay was again raised in Parliament. The Labour opposition favoured its introduction more strongly than the government of the day, believing that equal pay was an abstract principle of justice and that the potential, capabilities and ambitions of women were not recognised within the public service. This led to restricted opportunities for women in terms of salary and promotion. Mabel Howard criticised aspects of the PSC report, which she said made no reference to the high standard of work done by women public servants; without them the whole structure of the public service would fail. Referring to the assertion that women were more interested in marriage than a career, she drew the attention of Parliament to appointment figures in the public service. From December 1954 to March 1955, 298 girl cadets and 176 boy cadets had joined the public service. She also refuted the report's claim that equal pay existed to a large extent in the public service with the exception of basic grade clerical work.²² She was supported by Ethel McMillan.²³

Sidney Holland defended the PSC, claiming that the average length of service for women was only 7 years whereas the men were usually recruited for 40 years.²⁴ Later in the debate he became involved in a difference of opinion with Walter Nash who said that no one could logically argue that if a woman was as capable as a man, she should receive less. He said it was the value of the work that counted and that the government should not shirk the issue. Holland stated that the government was nearer to equal pay for its employees than was private enterprise; Nash agreed, expressing the hope that the government would continue to give the lead.²⁵

Although there were divisions within the PSA over the introduction of equal pay, the mid and late 1950s saw the development of a unity which was to become increasingly effective and would ultimately lead to success. At the PSA annual conference in August 1955 delegates resolved that they supported 'the application of the principles of payment for the job without discrimination because of sex, and equal opportunities for the promotion of women in all fields of labour.'²⁶ The extent of this support illustrates the mainstream nature of the campaign. Two representatives, Margot Jenkins^† and Margaret Brand, had been elected from the Wellington conference to present recommendations for endorsement to the annual conference. The conference resolution did not have the support of all members, however. In fact some of the Auckland departmental representatives collected signatures against equal pay from members and forwarded them to the PSA head office and the PSC.

There was an even greater division among members when the Executive Division proposals were announced by the PSC in November 1955. The executive officers of the PSA had been negotiating with the Commission since February 1955 in an effort to obtain improved and more effective salary scales for public servants. It was proposed that the public service be divided into two classes — an executive and a general service grade. All men with School Certificate would go straight through what was the equivalent of three grades (in the Executive Division). They could go to the top of Class IV. All women and men without School Certificate would not be eligible to enter this division. As Cath Kelly points out, 'The proposals meant a great advance for the kind of page 47 recruit the PSC wanted to get — the young career-minded male. They meant a great set back to the prospect of equal pay for men and women, a severe step back from the "merit principle" of advancement. It was both sexist and elitist.'²⁷

The proposal was introduced and passed by the Wellington section in one night. 'We were taken unawares. We hadn't worked it all out,' said Cath Kelly. A group of progressive people in the PSA decided to work on overturning the decision. Margaret Brand and Don Aimer travelled Wellington in a taxi to obtain the 25 signatures required for a specially requisitioned meeting; a wide range of departments were represented. A meeting was publicised by means of an 'illegal' leaflet circulated through departments by means of an unofficial network. At the very well attended meeting in the Wellington Town Hall a good majority voted against the proposals, but these results were not endorsed by the section committee, so another meeting was called and a similar kind of resolution passed.

Jack Turnbull and the then President Mike Mitchell were two of the main supporters of the proposals. On the executive itself a stalling action to delay the acceptance of the proposals was led by Jack Lewin, who had returned to the Executive Committee in 1953, Jim Ferguson (President following the conference), Dan Long and Barry Tucker. It was at this point that Dan Long became a major organiser for equal pay. He was, says Cath Kelly, 'a great inspiration, a very hard worker for equal pay, and innovative.'²⁸

Dan Long, PSA President 1958–60, worked long and hard for equal pay.

Before the 1956 annual conference, the progressive group, which included Grace du Faur^†, Don Aimer and Cath Eichelbaum, had succeeded in changing the stand of the Wellington section. At the annual conference the PSA overwhelmingly rejected the Executive Division proposals and after that the PSC dropped them. Looking back, Barry Tucker says, 'The Executive Division proposals [involved] some of the most bitter debates we've ever had. Even some progressive people couldn't see the evil of it. I happened to vigorously page 48 oppose the Executive Division concept. I saw it as an elitist proposal which would reward the highly qualified academic regardless of quality of performance. It also discriminated against women employees — blatant discrimination. How anyone could have supported it on humanitarian grounds I don't know. ... It would have harmed the public service for ever if it had ever been allowed to be introduced.'²⁹

These Executive Division proposals had posed a major threat to the progress of equal pay. 'If the Commission had introduced it,' Cath Kelly says, 'obviously they would have let it work through its course. It would have been a decade at least before they would have been prepared to change it. Opportunities for equal pay for women would have been put right back. We would have had to start campaigning from the beginning again.'³⁰