Parliament yesterday approved changes to the Equality for Men and Women Act, making it incumbent on defendants to prove that no discrimination had actually occurred when such complaints are raised.
In line with an EU directive, the courts are now obliged to uphold the applicants’ claims if defendants failed to prove otherwise.
Those alleging discrimination are only required to provide facts suggesting they were treated unfavourably because of their sex or family responsibilities.
Civil Liberties Minister Helena Dalli said the European Commission had noted that Maltese legislation did not conform with its directive on equal treatment because the onus of proving unfavourable treatment rested with the applicant. The government would thus rectify injustices.
Alleged victims of discrimination would be able to provide facts, before a court or any other competent authority, that did not necessarily relate to the case. Such facts could include evidence of the way in which the accused acted that suggested or indicated discriminatory behaviour.
People not promoted because they were not trained as they would be working on reduced hours, would also be able to provide such facts suggesting discriminatory behaviour.
Moreover, if victims of discrimination alleged they were not promoted because of gender, it would be enough for the applicants to show that they were more qualified than the person promoted or that persons of their sex had less chances of being promoted.
Dr Dalli said the changes to the law would do justice with employees who accused their employers of treating them unfavourably.
The Bill also set up the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality. One of the commission’s tasks was to monitor the implementation of the new law and to propose amendments at the minister’s request.
The Opposition spokeswoman on civil liberties, Claudette Buttigieg said that shifting the burden of proof from the victim onto the employer was a sensible measure, especially when a newspaper report alleged that a woman’s transfer caused her humiliation, pain and suffering. It was difficult for an employee to prove such facts. Dr Buttigieg said that the NCPE director should always be appointed after a public call. Such person should not be appointed by the minister because this could give rise to problems.
For a number of years, the Ombudsman promoted the idea that his office be an umbrella institution to promote human rights. The previous PN administration agreed with this suggestion.
Last October, the Ombudsman formally suggested the setting up of the National Human Rights Institution, which should be autonomous, perform its functions independently and be accountable to Parliament. This institution would aim at protecting human rights.
Dr Buttigieg said that giving additional functions to the NCPE and introducing a structure within a structure would only mean more costs and inefficient use of resources. She asked why would the government want to create this anomaly when there was the Ombudsman who already had to cater for the new functions.
Education Minister Evarist Bartolo said co-education would definitely help in reducing stereotyped views among children. This would help ascertain a future society that believed in equal opportunities.
While co-education was important and, in fact, it would be in full swing by the end of September, there were many others who felt that it was dangerous. However, many teachers and heads of school and even parents of children attending co-ed schools had said that there were many benefits.
The changes to the law would do justice with employees who accused their employers of treating them unfavourably
The previous administration had not brought up for discussion the proposed Gender Identity Act, on which he had presented a private member’s motion. He called on Dr Dalli to bring the Bill forward for discussion as this would truly continue the government’s quest to make everyone equal. The National Commission for Equality and Human Rights did not in any way overlap with the Ombudsman in terms of remit, he said. It was important that such a commission existed, independent of government, and the reorganisation was necessary.
Family Minister Michael Farrugia said that although the Bill was a step in the right direction, there were still laws that did not reflect equality and which had to be amended. One had thus to bring every law in line with the concept of equality because there were some laws that discriminated against women and others which discriminated against men.
In the early 1960s, equality between men and women consisted of just lip service. However, subsequent Labour governments had given an equal minimum wage to all sexes and extended the right to vote to all women. Moreover, Labour governments always made sure that a position dominated by males would also be open to women and it had strived to make available to women high career positions.
Dr Farrugia said the recent free childcare centre initiative gave the opportunity to both men and women to continue working after they had children.
The government also gave the right to apply for adoption to homosexual couples. Heterosexual and homosexual couples had now become equal when they sought to adopt children. However, he said, nobody had a right to adopt.
Luciano Busuttil (PL) said giving a woman rights was not just about laws on paper. A change in mentality was needed and women had to be more empowered to have faith in themselves and their capabilities.
Labour MP Carmelo Abela said the Bill was very significant because the mentality of a woman having a particular role but not another unfortunately still persisted in some cases.
He said women who chose not to work felt that society did not appreciate enough their contribution in taking care of the family. It was not enough to amend laws but cultural attitudes had to change too.
The government was committed to eradicate precarious work, where, more often than not, women were the victims.
Winding up the debate in second reading, Dr Dalli said that a restructuring exercise had been undertaken to extend the remit of the National Commission for Promoting Equality to be transformed into a commission for equality and human rights. As soon as the reorganisation was completed public calls for applications would be issued.
She said the Ombudsman had, since 2006, been asking Nationalist ministers to set up such a commission but to no avail. The Ombudsman had submitted formal proposals to the previous government in 2010 but the issue was shelved.
Dr Dalli said the Opposition’s criticism was unfair considering that, in one year, the Labour government had taken the necessary action, had presented the Bill, set in motion the consultative process and invited the Opposition to make its proposals. A White Paper would be published.
The government worked hand in hand with the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency, which had given advice also on the Civil Union Bill. The government was committed to follow the Paris principles.
The government adopted the model adopted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Dr Dalli said.