CHAPTER 5. Success

The years between 1956 and 1960 were vital ones in the equal pay movement. In April 1957 the Council for Equal Pay and Opportunity was officially formed, while in October of that year an official research programme began at the direction of the National government. (There was a change to a Labour government in November.) In mid-1958 a 250-page Working Party Report was compiled and the Labour government appointed an Equal Pay Implementation Committee in October 1959. Meanwhile struggles were taking place as the divisions between the PSA and the PSC intensified. During the term of the second Labour government, the Prime Minister, Walter Nash, became the focus of the opposing views of the PSA and PSC on many occasions. He subsequently proved to be less enthusiastic about equal pay than he had been as Leader of the Opposition. The fact that the Labour government had a majority of one may have been a factor. The passage of the Government Service Equal Pay Act in 1960 was by no means a smooth one. It came about mainly as a result of the pressure politics campaign maintained by the PSA as it was often forced to counteract the opposition of the PSC and reinvigorate the enthusiasm of Nash and his government.

The revival of interest in equal pay stimulated by the Parker case had spread to many of the smaller pressure groups and it became obvious to the PSA that if the equal pay movement was to gain strength and vitality the activities of these various organisations should be co-ordinated. A major step in this direction was made with the establishment of the Council for Equal Pay and Opportunity in 1957.

The nucleus of the council was formed when Sidney Holland, true to his promise, on 3 October 1956 invited representatives of 14 women's organisations and the PSA to what was popularly described as 'the Prime Minister's Tea Party' to discuss issues relating to salaries and wages. The PSA representatives were Margaret Brand, Margot Jenkins and Joyce McBeath. Not only was Holland himself meeting women from a cross section of organisations, but he had also brought these women into contact with each other.

At their lunch-time meeting on 4 September the majority of public service members present had supported a resolution stating that the organisations invited to the Prime Minister's meeting were not sufficiently representative of working women. It was decided that the PSA Executive Committee would ask the government to invite representatives from trade unions with a large number of women members. The government did not, however, do this. At the morning tea, Margot Jenkins, 'an impassioned fiery supporter of equal pay', issued a famous warning to Holland that 'women would not be fobbed off page 70

At the 'Prime Minister's tea party' Sid Holland is pictured with the representatives of 14 women's organisations who met to discuss issues of interest to New Zealand women. Dominion 4 October 1956.

with tea and cakes'.¹ During the meeting representatives from the PSA, the NCW, the Business and Professional Women's Club, the PPTA, the Federation of University Women, the Maori Women's Welfare League, the PSA, the NZEI and the Country Women's Institute all expressed their support for the principle of equal pay. The strength of opinion favouring equal pay was strong enough to persuade Holland to modify by the end of the meeting a statement he had made at the beginning. He began by seeking an agreement that a man should be paid enough to keep a wife and two or three children, but ended by saying: 'Times have changed. Men used to be the breadwinners, but now I know that thousands of women have dependants and these women should be getting as much pay as men.'²

The PSA Sub-Committee felt that the conference had been a worthwhile one. Its value could be seen in Holland's acceptance of the principle of equal pay (although he emphasised that it could not be introduced in the public service until it was applied generally), in the unity among the representatives present and in the preliminary contacts which had been made with other interested organisations. (The FOL, although not represented at the meeting, later suggested that the Women's Sub-committee contact individual unions, requesting that they raise the question of equal pay at the next annual conference of the FOL.)³

Following this meeting the PSA decided to pursue three lines of approach in the campaign for equal pay: to continue negotiations with the PSC, to interview MPs and to try to form a national committee of organisations supporting equal pay. The first and second lines of approach were to prove slow and frustrating; the third, however, was to result in more immediate success.

In the days of less sophisticated advertising, this is how women public servants were invited to a buffet tea in the 1950s.

The formation of the National Committee on Equal Pay owed a great deal to the initiative, hard work and determination of some outstanding personalities. Margaret Brand, now a Member of the PSA Executive Committee, travelled around New Zealand in the later months of 1956, mainly to encourage the co-operation of organisations outside the PSA. She was reporting to the PSA sections, some of which invited women from other groups. Jim Ferguson supported her in this, and Joyce McBeath, a women's representative on the National Executive and a member of its Equal Pay Committee, also played an important part in the formation of the national committee.

Joyce McBeath had ties with women in a number of organisations. Equally important was Challis Hooper, first President of what was later known as the Council for Equal Pay and Opportunity — a woman who had the confidence of the women's organisations. Dan Long, who succeeded Jim Ferguson as PSA President in August 1958 and had been convenor of the Equal Pay Committee of the Executive since 1956, also became closely involved in the development of this national committee. His role was an organisational one in which he exercised careful and constructive planning of a suitable constitution and associated policies. He and Patricia Webb, representative of the Federation of University Women, co-wrote the constitution. The combined efforts of these people resulted in the formation of the Council for Equal Pay and Opportunity in early 1957.

On 10 October 1956, in Hamilton, Margaret Brand addressed a meeting, convened by the local PSA section, on equal pay. There were 75 women and 14 men present, local representatives from the NCW, the Registered Nurses' Association, the PPTA, the Federation of University Women, the Railway Officers' Institute, the Engineers' Union and the Draughtsmen's Institute. PSA representatives came from the Women's Committee of the Auckland section. At the meeting Margaret Brand dealt in detail with the events surrounding the Parker case and the 3 October conference with Holland. During the Hamilton meeting a resolution was passed expressing disapproval of the Prime Minister's statement that he could not introduce equal pay in the public service until it was applied generally. They were unable to accept his fear that equal pay in the public service would cause problems in the national economy; page 73

Margaret Brand's Hamilton meeting is vigorously promoted in this PSA publicity sheet.

no such results were apparent in England, where equal pay had recently been introduced.⁵

Further progress was made at a 27 November meeting of 100 public service women in Wellington, addressed by Jim Ferguson. The meeting, among other things, supported PSA action in seeking the setting up of a national organisation for the promotion of equal pay and opportunity.

On 10 December 1956, at a Wellington meeting convened by the PSA, 21 representatives from 14 trade unions, institutes and women's organisations had, preliminary 'round the table' talks on methods of promoting the principle of equal pay and opportunity for women.^† Jim Ferguson, who chaired this first meeting, stated his belief that progress could be made if, by the combined efforts of all interested organisations, the government could be sufficiently stirred into early action. He said it was the PSA's hope that meetings such as this would help to achieve the objective in a much shorter period than that which the government had in mind. The PSA Equal Pay Committee's views on the aims and principles of the proposed national council were outlined by Dan Long. He felt that the national council could also endeavour to enlist public support for the campaign by issuing publicity in the form of bulletins, reports, press statements and replies to statements. He believed that representation from all interested bodies was essential if the campaign was to be brought to a successful and early conclusion. Margaret Brand reported PSA views on the page 74

'She's decided there's only one way fir a girl to gel a man's pay — so she's going (o marry him.' A cynical comment from Lodge in the Public Service Journal.

composition and organisation of the proposed national council and forwarded a series of suggestions for discussion. It was agreed that the executive committee of the national council should have 1 representative each from at least 10 organisations.

In December Margaret Brand addressed PSA section meetings in Rotorua, Nelson and Christchurch, which stimulated interest in those centres, not only within the PSA, but also within other organisations; they received good publicity in the press.⁶

In February and April of 1957 meetings of the Interim Council for Equal Pay took place at which a constitution for the national council was drafted and approved, and on 9 April the name. Council for Equal Pay and Opportunity, was decided upon.⁷ On 8 August 1957 the council met for the second time since its formal establishment. At this meeting a letter from Holland was read, wishing the council every success, and it was decided to circulate to all presidents of political parties a draft statement describing the organisation and aims of the council, with the possibility of extending its circulation to election candidates. It was also decided that the Executive Committee should draw up a number of questions to circulate to member organisations for use at election meetings.

Although the aims of the newly formed organisation were to achieve equal pay and opportunity for all women it was to become closely involved in the general building up of pressure and activity preceding the passing of the Government Service Equal Pay Act 1960.

Meanwhile the PSA concentrated on developing the other two courses of negotiations with both the government and the PSC. Both approaches proved difficult as neither was prepared to accept responsibility, each trying to put the onus on the other. As these negotiations were closely related in some instances, they are best examined together.

In response to his request during an interview on 31 August, Jack Turnbull, on behalf of the PSA, sent a letter to the Attorney-General, John Marshall, on 10 September 1956, giving him detailed information on equal pay and related problems in the public service. The letter referred to the principle of equal pay adopted by the United Nations Organisation, the PSC acceptance of equal pay 'in principle' and the introduction of universal family benefits in 1946 and the fact that successive governments had failed to undertake concrete action. The next section of the letter outlined examples of wage rate discrimination in 10 different public service occupations. In answer to the PSC claim that 'women appear to shun responsibility', it was pointed out that there were too many cases where women were denied the opportunities of qualifying for or taking responsible positions. Turnbull then went on to examine job discrimination in relation to seniority, grading and actual experience. He also argued that the PSC was tightening the barriers against women and increasing the discriminations. Mention was made of other countries — the United States, Canada, Scandinavian countries, France and the USSR, all of which were ahead of New Zealand in this matter. Regarding the claim that equal pay could not be introduced into the public service until it was applied to industry generally, Turnbull stated the PSA belief that it was up to the government to give the lead in matters of principle.⁸

On the basis of this letter one could claim that the Attorney-General, and members of his government, were once again informed on the question of equal pay in the public service and the general attitudes of PSA officials. Having extended one avenue of approach through writing to the government, the PSA decided to pursue the other line of negotiation and met PSC representatives on 18 October 1956. There were detailed discussions on the various points Jack Turnbull had put forward in his letter to the government, but rather than discuss a compromise, the PSC put forward a defence of its policies.⁹ On 5 November 1956 Turnbull wrote to Marshall expressing the view that 'The interview with the Commission only confirmed our view that no substantial progress is likely to be made unless and until the government gives some clear indication that it wants progress to be made. ... There was not the slightest suggestion that the Commission was prepared to relax its general attitude.'¹⁰

Following this, PSA representatives had an interview with the Cabinet Committee on 20 November but achieved little success in breaking the deadlock between the Commission and the Association. In a circular to members of the Executive Committee the PSA expressed its disillusionment — 'It seems clear that both the government and the Commission refuse to acknowledge responsibility for making a reality of the principle of equal pay.'¹¹ The circular concluded with an outline of future PSA policy. It was decided that the PSA should persevere with attempts to gain the co-operation of the Prime Minister. Members were reminded of the approaching general election and the possibilities of making equal pay an election issue. The necessity to page 76 maintain the interest, strength and support of women's organisations and unions in the interests of co-ordinating action was firmly stated. The PSA urged its members to obtain as much publicity as possible in the press and through supplying other interested organisations with information. Regarding activity at a sectional level, it was recommended that all sections should be urged to set up special sub-committees to accept responsibility for distributing propaganda, answering published statements and letters, drawing attention to injustices and generally advancing the cause of equal pay in their own areas.¹² These words of advice were followed by many PSA members.

On 27 November 1956, 100 public service women attended a meeting held as a protest against the inaction of the government over the equal pay question. The meeting, which was addressed by Jim Ferguson, passed two resolutions — firstly, that it was obvious from the interview with the Cabinet Committee on 20 November that the government had no immediate intention of improving the salary and promotion of women public servants, and secondly, that the meeting supported the Executive Committee in their decision to proceed with legal action in the Parker case and urged women to continue lodging appeals against males appointed to the basic grade.¹³

At the meeting Ferguson also pointed out that 9 out of 11 women in the past few weeks had won appeals against male recruits to the public service and this had caused considerable embarrassment to the Commission. At a meeting the Association's committee had had with the Commission, the Commission had offered to give women seniority rights if women public servants gave up all rights of appeal. 'If I had given in to this 1 would not be here to tell you about it today, or if I was I do not suppose I would go out the way I came in,' said Ferguson.¹⁴ (As stated earlier, this meeting was also influential in the setting up of a national organisation for the promotion of equal pay and opportunity.) No further progress was made in negotiations with the Commission and the government until late 1957 with the approach of the general election.

In November 1957 Labour won the general election and Walter Nash became Prime Minister. During this time members of the government, especially Nash, were subject to constant pressure reminding them of promises made, while the PSC continued to oppose the introduction of equal pay, to the public mainly on social grounds and mainly on economic grounds in private correspondence with Nash.¹⁸

The first significant step on equal pay to be taken by the new government was on 9 January 1958, when Henry Mason, the Attorney-General, advised the working party to continue according to its original instructions.¹⁹ The report, completed on 30 April, was made up of 12 special papers prepared on the basis of working party meetings and correspondence which had taken place. Predominantly factual, the report provided the government with valuable reference material.

Paper A dealt with texts from overseas countries where the introduction of equal pay had been examined, while Paper B investigated the problem of defining and assessing work of equal value. The working party said that 'the rate for the job' was the most widely accepted definition for equal pay, but pointed out the difficulties of reaching a comprehensive definition acceptable to all. Factors such as the length of service, cost of training and physical strength were relevant to a definition of equal pay and could vary according to circumstances. Paper C described measures for the support of family income in various countries and Paper D examined equal pay in the Civil Service in the United Kingdom. Paper E was a review of wage policy in New Zealand with regard to differentials based on sex. It was generally agreed that the margin of difference between an adult male and an adult female rate was largely to enable the male recipient to support a wife and family. In Paper F forms of differentiation in New Zealand were outlined in relation to legislation governing wages and conditions of employment, together with an indication of the extent of differentials based on sex. Paper G gave information on numbers, proportions and working life of women in employment in New Zealand and Paper H described the current position of female employees in government employment.

In Paper I the cost of implementing equal remuneration in government employment was estimated, Paper J dealt with a rough indication of the cost of applying the principle of equal remuneration in local authority employment and Paper K assessed the cost of applying the principle of equal remuneration to private industry. Generally, it was estimated that the total annual cost of equal remuneration in all fields of employment would be approximately £21 million. In government employment the cost would be around the £3 million mark. In Paper L the broad economic implications of equal remuneration were page 79 examined — the probabilities that cost would increase income tax revenue and affect retail price levels. Also discussed were the possible results increased incomes might have on the demands for goods and services. Further, it was claimed that the size and distribution of the labour force might be affected and that difficulties could arise over recruitment and employment.

Altogether the report was 250 pages long. Five men and one woman had worked under the chairmanship of N. S. Woods, representing the Department of Labour. D. F. Anderson, D. E. Homewood, A. A. Teague, C. H. Henry, R. H. Whiteside and Daphne John had represented the Departments of Treasury, Industries and Commerce, Statistics, Treasury, Inland Revenue and Labour respectively.²⁰ By instructing the working party to proceed, the Labour government seemed to be genuinely interested in introducing equal pay if its ramifications were acceptable. But were they?

During and after the compilation of the working party report, both the PSA and PSC were actively making approaches to the Prime Minister. Walter Nash was in the position where he could not please all sides. He was not prepared to make any definite decisions nor did he take any positive action one way or the other until late in 1960. Although he often excused his inaction on the grounds that he lacked time to study the question, he tended to procrastinate on many occasions when he could have gained the information he felt he required. The fact that he had a working majority of one may have influenced him. While the working party report was being compiled in the early months of 1958, Nash received repeated demands, on the one hand from the PSA regarding implementation and urging him to introduce equal pay as soon as possible, and on the other hand from the PSC endeavouring to dissuade him from its implementation on economic and social grounds. Both organisations had been contacted by the working party and so were aware of the nature of the investigations.²¹ During the course of negotiations, the PSC, under the leadership of George Bolt, continued with its opposition to equal pay by placing increased emphasis on the economic argument against it in private correspondence to Nash, while reiterating the 'social wage' argument in public statements. Although the PSA kept the PSC well informed on relevant correspondence with Nash, the PSA was not always aware of the exact nature of Bolt's opposition as set out in his letters to the Prime Minister.

On 13 February 1958, PSA representatives had a further discussion with Nash on the question of implementation of equal pay. Jim Ferguson asked Nash how the government proposed to introduce equal pay and suggested it be introduced on 1 April 1958 and continue over a three-year period. Nash suggested, however, that its application should be spread over a seven-year period as in Great Britain.²² Nash said he would ask the PSC to advise him on implementation and costs in the public service. A fortnight later, Bolt wrote to Nash opposing equal pay rather than advising on methods of implementation. He began by referring to the 'social' element in men's wages and the fact that this would disappear with equal pay. He also referred to economic factors — the inevitable rise in the cost of living which would bear very heavily on those living on fixed incomes. He pointed out that the wages of females would increase without any additional production and the wages of men would probably 'increase in sympathy'. He said that superannuitants and social page 80 security beneficiaries would suffer most. He finished by referring to the Public Service Act and pointed out that the Commission was responsible for running the public service with 'efficiency and economy'. He felt it was obvious that 'the Commission was not carrying out its responsibilities if it paid above ruling rates of wages for the labour it engaged.'²³

About a week later, on 3 March, Nash received a further letter from the PSA on the implementation of equal pay in the public service, in accordance with agreements made at the 13 February meeting. In the letter detailed proposals were put forward as examples of the ways in which equal pay could be implemented in the clerical and welfare divisions, in mental hospitals and for nurses. The letter concluded with a further request that implementation would commence as from 1 April 1958.²⁴ As Nash was overseas at the time the letter was held over until his return.

On 17 March Jack Turnbull wrote to Clarence Skinner, the acting Prime Minister, asking him if the government had obtained the PSC's views on implementation and informing him he was sending copies of the 3 March PSA letter to Bolt. At this stage it appears that the PSA was not told officially of the nature of the PSC's opposition to the introduction of equal pay, while the Commission was well informed on the attitudes and proposals of the Association.

The Commission, after reading Turnbull's letter, sent a further letter to the Prime Minister on 20 March. It was evident from the contents of the letter that their opposition was intensifying rather than abating. Bolt wrote: 'The letter from the Association would lead one to believe that at least at its inception the problem was a fairly easy one and that over a period of three years equal pay could become an established fact.'²⁵ The most forceful aspect of his argument, however, was the economic view: 'The cost of the application of the principle and its implications could amount to a very considerable sum of money at a time when the financial situation, to say the least, requires careful and constant watching. As well as these effects within the services, there could undoubtedly be sympathetic increases to similar types of employment outside the services.'²⁶ Finally, Bolt made a passing reference to the 'social content' in wages apart from which wages were equal. This point was relatively insignificant in relation to the economic argument presented in the letter, but when the PSC put its report before the House of Representatives on 1 July 1958, there was much more emphasis on the 'social' element in men's wages, which had always been part of New Zealand's wage structure.

In June 1958 the New Zealand government representative was called on to vote on the 1958 International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention on Discrimination in Employment. At the 1951 ILO Conference the New Zealand representatives had abstained from the vote on the ILO Convention on Equal Remuneration, which created obligations for states ratifying it, and voted for the recommendation, which was merely a guide to national action.²⁷ In 1956 New Zealand reported to the ILO that it did not contemplate any immediate major measures towards the implementation of the convention,²⁸ and in June 1958 its attitude was much the same. When the vote was taken at the ILO there were 145 votes taken in favour, 22 against and 5 abstentions, including New Zealand. Walter Nash said that although New Zealand was not page 81

In its editorial of August 1958 the Public Service Journal has its say about the Commission's attitude to equal pay.

opposing it, equal pay would have to have been introduced immediately if New Zealand had voted for the convention.²⁹ This, however, was not called for in terms of ILO conventions.

On behalf of the Council for Equal Pay and Opportunity Margaret Brand tries yet again to arrange an interview with Walter Nash. The Prime Minister's refusal is written on the telegram.

Over the issue of the convention, the Council for Equal Pay and Opportunity became more closely involved. At their executive meeting on 3 July 1958, a resolution was passed recommending that the council urge the government to debate the question of ratification of the 1951 Convention on Equal Remuneration in the present parliamentary session.³⁰ On 2 September 1958 the council sent a letter to Nash advising him of a similar resolution which had been passed unanimously at its meeting on 7 August.³¹ Further, in November 1958, the council decided to prepare a press statement expressing its concern at the stand the New Zealand government had taken at the ILO conference.³² Although these actions had little success in persuading the government to ratify the convention, they publicised the issue and put pressure on the government to redefine its policies. The issue of ratification was raised by the council the following year.

On 10 June 1959 after much difficulty, the council persuaded Nash to receive a deputation from some of its members. Delegates to the meeting were Grace du Faur, George Hobbs, Olive Smuts-Kennedy and Margaret Brand. William Fox, the acting Minister of Labour and Allan Atkinson, the new Chairman of the PSC, also attended. When reference was made to the 1958 ILO Conference Nash said the stand of the New Zealand government remained the same.³³ The deputation also questioned the Prime Minister on other aspects of equal pay. He was asked to narrow the margin between the male and female adult minimum wage.

In January 1959 the Public Service Journal deplores the government's slow progress on the introduction of equal pay.

The outcome of this meeting was expressed by a PSA representative, 'It was obvious that the Prime Minister was not prepared to take any steps towards the implementation of equal pay in the present economic conditions.'³⁶

The PSA had endeavoured to encourage Nash to promote further discussions between him, the PSA and PSC in the interests of devising a plan for implementation and 'Nash agreed to "consider" this. And by agreeing to "consider" Mr Nash soon made it quite clear he meant that and nothing more.'³⁷ The PSA, however, continued to pressure the Prime Minister to arrange these discussions. They wrote to him in September and October but received no reply until November when he promised to make arrangements for an interview when he returned from Seattle. In the interview, which took place on 5 December, he appeared reluctant to discuss the issue mainly on the grounds that he had been unable to study the question.

On 4 April 1959 a further meeting took place between Nash and representatives of the PSC and the PSA to discuss the proposed order of reference and constitution of the Implementation Committee. Nash informed them of his intention to set up a committee of five to advise the government on the introduction of equal pay. Despite this, the PSC in its report of July 1959 did not page 85

'Well, if they're finally coming up with equal pay this year I'll really believe in Santa Claus!' Lodge's Christmas cartoon in the 1959 Journal.

appear to have changed its attitude in the slightest, merely repeating the arguments put forward in the 1958 report.⁴⁰ The Commission was soon to change its attitude, however.

Nash's promise was realised when, on 21 October 1959, the cabinet agreed to the establishment of a committee to work out the principles for the implementation of an equal pay scheme in the government service.⁴¹ Accordingly, the PSC's 1960 report appeared to have accepted the fact that equal pay was soon to be introduced: 'In conjunction with the Public Service Association, the Commission has been preparing and submitting to the Equal Pay Implementation Committee for its consideration proposals for new salary scales eliminating sex differentials.'⁴² This marked a major step forward in the Commission's attitude; for the first time it had admitted officially that equal pay could become a reality.

Nevertheless, Allan Atkinson, the new Commissioner, says now that he did not share all of George Bolt's views on equal pay. He appears to have favoured the introduction of equal pay more than some other members of the Commission. In notes to his colleagues written on 29 April 1959 he described the meeting of 4 April and gave his recommendations for the order of reference of the Implementation Committee. One of the recommendations (7) stated: 'For equal pay to apply there must be a man's wage with which to equate a woman's pay. A question to be decided is whether equal pay will be applied in only those occupations in which both men and women are employed. Conversely, on the implementation of equal pay should any change be made in the salaries of women in those occupations which are traditionally women's occupations, page 86 e.g., typists, nurses and dental nurses? If so, increases to what level?' This principle was partially incorporated in the official order of reference 1 (b).⁴³ On 26 July 1960, the Report of the Equal Pay Implementation Committee was presented to Walter Nash.⁴⁴

Pressure was now on the Labour government to introduce the Government Service Equal Pay Bill to Parliament and fulfil its election promise of 1957, before the 1960 general election. The supporters of equal pay did not have long to wait.

As the date of the election drew closer, pressure intensified and in the months between June and October 1960 many people became filled with a sense of urgency. Walter Nash became the focus of private telephone conversations, telegrams, letters, newspaper reports, deputations, meetings and critical parliamentary debate. Under the steady guidance of Jack Turnbull and Dan Long the PSA during these months exercised restraint and caution as many moves were carefully planned and timed to result in ultimate success. But despite the public image of restraint and caution, there was continuous private pressure; the threat to the government was always there.

Although the Report of the Equal Pay Implementation Committee was presented to Nash in July 1960, he appeared reluctant to study it, at the same time claiming that he was unable to make any positive statements regarding the proposed equal pay legislation until he had considered the report and its implications. The Prime Minister attended the PSA annual conference on 18 August 1960 and affirmed his party's intention to introduce equal pay before the general election, although he still had to consider the report.

Little progress was made, however, and Turnbull, dissatisfied with Nash's lack of progress, rang his office on 14 September seeking up-to-date information on the Equal Pay Implementation Committee's Report. He made little headway, however.⁴⁶ The next day a circular was sent to PSA sections reporting on the annual conference, in which strong disillusionment had been expressed over the fact that no positive steps had been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Equal Pay Implementation Committee. This was felt to be especially lax in view of the fact that the parliamentary session was page 87

In October 1960 the Journal is still asking when action on equal pay is likely.

drawing to a close. At the conference it was decided that the executive officers should seek an immediate interview with the Prime Minister, and that the PSA representatives on the Central Committee of the Combined State Service Organisation (CSSO) should ask for that organisation's support in pressing for urgency in the implementation of equal pay.⁴⁷

On 21 September the Central Committee of the CSSO wrote to the Prime Minister asking him for information on the present position and Nash replied on 23 September that it had not been possible to give the Implementation Committee Report the thorough examination it required. Nash said he could see a deputation if it was particularly required, but added that there would be little point at that particular time.⁴⁸ On 26 September, however. Jack Turnbull wrote again to Nash, repeating the request that he receive a deputation on the matter. He reminded Nash of his meeting with PSA representatives in February 1958 and his promises regarding government policy and intentions. In view of the lapse of more than two and a half years since then, and Nash's reference to making an announcement on government policy, Turnbull pointed out that an interview was clearly necessary.⁴⁹ On 27 September Nash replied, affirming government support for equal pay but regretting he was unable to take any more deputations within the next fortnight.⁵⁰ During the final two days of September Nash departed for the United Nations.

There appear to be two versions of how the Equal Pay Bill came to be drafted. According to the minutes of the PSA Executive Committee Meeting of 4 October 1960, during Nash's absence, Jack Turnbull, in a clever, carefully planned move, approached Clarence Skinner, the Deputy Prime Minister, and had a brief discussion with him in which he acknowledged the impracticability of asking the government to take any positive action in Nash's absence, but asked him to arrange for the drafting of any legislation considered necessary for the introduction of equal pay. Skinner undertook to see the Minister of Justice regarding this.⁵¹ Shortly before his death in 1986, however, Jack Turnbull recalled that he assisted in the drafting of the bill. He offered to help the Law Draftsman; Walter Nash permitted him to do so and this work was done while Nash was overseas.⁵²

In the meantime, the PSA sent circulars to all sections asking them to take up page 88 the matter with local Labour MPs. On 7 October, Turnbull wrote to the Prime Minister on behalf of the Central Committee of the CSSO stressing grave concern that, with the parliamentary session drawing to a close, equal pay legislation might not be passed. He reported his discussion with Skinner and sought an early interview on the matter.

On It October the New Zealand Herald published a news item mentioning seven bills as the only legislation still to be introduced to Parliament during the session of 11–28 October. As there was no mention of equal pay Turnbull telegraphed Nash seeking his assurance that an equal pay bill would be introduced as promised. In response Nash telephoned Turnbull early that morning and told him that an equal pay bill would be introduced not later than the beginning of the following week, but he specially requested that no publicity be given to his intention.⁵³ Nash apparently did not wish even Labour members to be informed of the matter; representatives of the Wellington section had seen William Fox and Michael Moohan that day and neither of them appeared to know anything about it. On 13 October Nash advised Turnbull that he was working on the legislation and hoped to introduce it within a few days.⁵⁴ The next day Turnbull wrote a further letter to the Prime Minister pressing strongly for equal pay to commence as from 1 April 1960.⁵⁵ The Dominion and Evening Post of 15 October both reported Nash's intention of introducing equal pay legislation during the parliamentary session and on the same day Nash advised Turnbull that the bill would be introduced almost immediately.⁵⁶

On 19 October the Government Service Equal Pay Bill was introduced and passed through all but the final stage. On the evening of 25 October many supporters of equal pay who had worked so hard and endured setback after setback, rushed to hear the second reading debate. There were only seven speakers — Walter Nash, William Fox, Ethel McMillan and John Mathison for the government, and Keith Holyoake, Arthur Kinsella and Lance Adams-Schneider for the opposition. Contrary to expectations there was little controversy over the bill. The opposition, who had on all previous occasions opposed the introduction of equal pay in government employment until it was general, and had stressed the need to study the various implications, surprisingly-expressed themselves in support of the bill, criticising the government for not having acted earlier. They claimed that, had National remained in office, the implementation of equal pay would have been further advanced by this time. Important points made during the debate were that the government intended the first stage of implementation to take effect from 1 April 1961, and that National emphasised its intention of seeing that the bill was fully applied if it became the government.⁵⁷

The long-awaited step was taken when, on 27 October 1960, in the last week of the final parliamentary session, the Government Service Equal Pay Bill became law. In the words of the act, it was 'To make provision for the application to the Government Service of the principle that women should receive the same pay as men where they do equal work under equal conditions.'⁵⁸ The act was to come into force on 1 April 1961 and was to be introduced in three equal stages ending on 1 April 1963.

The scope of the act was far wider than the PSA had anticipated in the early stages of the campaign. By including all 'Government employees' and 'all page 89

'Well, we're practically there, but it makes you wonder why it look so long.' At last! Nevile Lodge's cartoon wittily sums up the long, difficult struggle for equal pay.

other employees whose salaries or wages are met wholly from money appropriated by Parliament', it was far wider than the British act which covered only the clerical grades. It also had a mechanism for introducing equal pay into occupations performed exclusively or principally by women and to which 'there are no corresponding scales of pay for men to which they can fairly be related'.⁵⁹

As Margaret Long recalls, 'It was always touch and go. There was nothing inevitable about the legislation that year.'⁶⁰ Cath Kelly says: 'It was a very far-reaching Act. I do believe that the PSA won equal pay for the state services, and some other organisations were good supporters.'⁶¹

Before payment could be made, the various employing authorities had to co-ordinate their proposals so new scales could be worked out by the Commission in its determination. The first payment, due on 1 April 1961, was actually made on 27 August 1962.

With the historic legislation of 1960 New Zealand joined the majority of world nations in paying men and women equally for equal work. After struggling for so long against social attitudes which had developed in the foundations of our social heritage and were maintained during the Great Depression; through the years of the Second World War when many prejudices against working women were changed; against the stubborn resistance of the PSC which intensified as the equal pay movement gained strength; and against the non-committal attitude of Walter Nash, the PSA had finally reached the end of a long and difficult climb to the summit of success.

Public Service Journal, November 1960

Public Service Journal, January 1962

Public Service Journal, April 1962

Public Service Journal, June 1962

These headlines in the Journal trace the progress of equal pay implementation after the historic 1960 legislation.