Council Votes For Right To Discriminate (Press, 6 May 1985)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Council Votes For Right To Discriminate (Press, 6 May 1985)
On 6 May 1985, the Auckland City Council made a controversial decision to reject an amendment aimed at prohibiting discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation. The council voted 11-9 against the proposed amendment by Mr Richard Northey, a Labour councillor and member of Parliament for Mt Eden. The amendment sought to add "sexual orientation" to the list of prohibited discrimination grounds outlined in the council’s employment handbook, which already included race, colour, national or ethnic origin, sex, marital status, and religious or political beliefs. The Mayor, Dame Catherine Tizard, who supports the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, backed Mr Northey's proposal, expressing her disappointment at any potential discrimination against employees of minority sexual orientations. She highlighted that there are already individuals with diverse sexual orientations employed by the council, asserting that personnel decisions should be based solely on merit and ability. However, opposition arose within the council regarding the amendment. Deputy Mayor Mr John Strevens argued against it, stating that while he did not see sexual orientation as the most critical factor, it could be considered a valid reason for discrimination, akin to discrimination based on a person's appearance. Additionally, Cr Barrie Hutchinson criticized the term “sexual preference,” stating it was too ambiguous and could lead to justifications for various unacceptable behaviours. Despite the support for the amendment from the Mayor and others advocating for non-discrimination, the council ultimately decided to maintain its current stance, retaining the right to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. This decision aligned with the thoughtful reasoning of some council members who believed that the complexities of sexual orientation should be approached with care and caution.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand