This really was a huge social change.
I am no longer of the view though that it is a bad thing when changes like this provoke a lot of social discourse and some pushback, or when it takes some time to make them happen.
When I was younger my inclination was to think, oh, people were just sexists who dislike women. But actually a change like this is a real change in how a person who owns a business is able to decide what is best for that business, and it potentially changes the risks related to that investment. So it's not the case that no one else is being affected, even if it's the case factually that there will be no material effects to a business or even that it will be overall good effects, there is still a principle which is removing a certain amount of discretion in the decisions a business owner makes.
I can understand why someone might feel, I am making the investment here, taking the risk, doing the work, not the state. Why should I be in a position where I cannot decide to hire on whatever basis I think will be best?
And of course women in the workplace on equal terms also led to things like maternity leaves and such, so it had knock on effects that could be significant issues for employers to manage. And I think we could also argue, because of that we have implemented various ways that the state can help employers manage things like maternity leaves, so it has a costs to the state as well.
That is a serious thing to do involving real social investment, and I think very much deserved a robust discussion. And even more, good legislation that thinks carefully about it wants to achieve and knock on effects. Which is something that I feel we haven't seen as much in recent years.