This graph from ANZ Bank shows the participation rate in the labour force for women in NZ and te US. We’ve gone from 4% lower to almost 8% higher.Tags: women
This graph from ANZ Bank shows the participation rate in the labour force for women in NZ and te US. We’ve gone from 4% lower to almost 8% higher.Tags: women
Chris Finlayson announced:
The Honourable Sir Mark O’Regan has been appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court and the Honourable Justice Ellen France will replace him as President of the Court of Appeal, Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson announced today.
This means New Zealand now has women as head of benches for all four principal courts:
I suspect we may be the only country in the world to have women head up every level of the judiciary. Pretty significant when you consider that it was only a few decades ago that women became lawyers in significant numbers, let alone judges. Our first female judge was in 1975 (Dame Augusta Wallace). The first female high court judge was Dame Silvia Cartwright in 1993.Tags: Judiciary, women
The Washington Times reports:
Iran won seats on five subcommittees of the U.N. Economic and Social Council earlier this week, including one to the Commission on the Status of Women — a body tasked with pressing for women’s rights around the world.
The Government of Iran has an appalling record when it comes to women’s rights. A few of their achievements:
* a Jadis post – DPF has made his way out of the bush but is still analysing his data for his travel blog extravaganza
Cunliffe’s Labour has a problem with women. This week’s Herald-Digipoll highlighted that Labour is losing support from women. The reasons for loss of support aren’t simple. And while much of the support is crossing the aisle to National, it is also redistributing itself to the Greens.
But why is Labour losing the female vote?
Sure, all those perception issues matter but I think we need to unpack a little more. Some of Cunliffe’s policy is also turning women off.
The ‘baby bonus’ has backfired dramatically. Women who I’ve previously known to be Labour voters are surprised that Labour thinks a family with a $150K income needs as much help as their $50-$70K earning family.
Labour’s paid parental leave policy has also backfired. Women aren’t idiots. They too recognise that while it might be wonderful to have more paid parental leave it also needs to occur within the available budget. Many of the women I know run their home finances. They know how to live within their means and how to scrape together a bit more when the washing machine breaks down. They know that they are coming out of a tough time and they are still being careful with their own and household spending. So when Bill English suggests that yes at some point a modest extension to PPL could occur dependent on the budget then these women are much more likely to believe that than Cunliffe and Moroney’s “all and everything” approach.
Labour are also losing votes on Education. It is amazing this is even possible when National were doing such a good job of shooting themselves in the foot on Education and then the whole Novopay saga. Hekia’s recent announcements to fund quality teaching and leadership is pulling parents back to supporting National on Education. More importantly, Labour spent a whole lot of time on attack and have filled that opportunity for their alternative Education policy with… well, nothing.
I cheekily asked a few of my left-leaning friends why they thought Labour had a problem with attracting female voters. One response struck me: “I personally think Labour men are just as smarmy as National men, but the reason I am turned off by Labour is their women are, by and large, much more ineffectual than National women. For all their baggage, Collins, Parata, Kaye and Tolley on the front bench kicks Labour’s offering of Ardern, Mahuta and Moroney.”
So it seems it is not all about Cunliffe but that the women in Labour’s caucus need to either ‘step up’ or be replaced with some ‘new blood’. Oh, that’s right… Labour don’t believe in new blood. And a ‘man ban’ is unlikely to help this wee problem.
Most of all, Mr Cunliffe, stop patronising us womenfolk.
* this is not an attack on breastfeeding. It is an attack on a silly politician thinking women get won over by that sort of rubbish AKA patronising and just a little paternalistic.
Tags: David Cunliffe, Digipoll, Greens, Labour Party, National Party, women
The Herald reports:
Parliament’s Speaker, David Carter, has sought a review of Maori protocols at Parliament after two senior women MPs were asked to move from the front row for a welcome ceremony to visitors.
He said he wanted to “modernise” the protocols. “Parliament needs a protocol that is modern and acceptable to a diversified Parliament.”
Parliament’s longest serving woman MP Annette King and her Labour colleague Maryan Street were asked to move from the front bench during a powhiri at the start of the Youth Parliament several months ago.
That prompted the Speaker to begin a process to review protocols that were put in place 15 years ago with the oversight of the Wellington iwi, Te Atiawa.
On a marae, the protocol is set by the host Iwi. They can set whatever rules they want (and of course bear any criticism of those rules). But in Parliament, the rules should be set by Parliament, and they should and must embrace equality. It is offensive to women MPs to be told during Youth Parliament they can not sit on the front bench during the powhiri.
Ms King and Ms Street came in late and when they sat on the front row alongside the Speaker, they were asked to shift by Kura Moeahu, who assists Parliament’s kaumatua, Rose White-Tahuparae.
“They were asked to move and I thought that was embarrassing to them,” Mr Carter told the Herald.
He had had feedback from other MPs.
“I have initiated the discussions with Te Atiawa and I haven’t had feedback from those discussions. But the matter won’t rest. I intend to follow it up in the New Year. I want Te Atiawa to talk to other iwi so that we can modernise protocol but do it in a way that respects Maori tradition,” Mr Carter said.
It sounds like the Speaker is determined to get change, which is excellent.Tags: Parliament, women
Some fascinating US research from Gallup.
Asked if they would prefer a male boss or a female boss or have no preference, 41% said no preference, 35% said a male boss and 23% a female boss. back in 1963 66% said they would prefer a male boss and just 5% a female boss.
I’m one of those who would of course say no preference. I would note that generally I would say my female bosses have been better than my male bosses – but not in all cases. Of course I’m now self-employed so have a bastard as a boss
What is fascinating in the US research is the data broken down by gender.
40% of women said they would prefer a male boss (ie not a female boss) compared to just 29% of men.
Would be interesting to see if the same result occurred in NZ. Not sure it would.
I would hope that most people would say they have no preference, as it is silly to generalise. But only 32% of women said they had no preference compared to 51% of men.Tags: women
The Herald reports:
New Zealand is among the top 10 best places to be a woman, according to a worldwide report on gender equality.
It ranked seventh out of 136 countries in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index 2013, with narrow gaps between the sexes in the health, education, economic and political sectors.
New Zealand was at number one – equal with several European countries – for educational attainment, which included literacy rates and enrolment in primary, secondary and tertiary education.
In terms of educational achievement, women are not just at a par with men, but streaks ahead.
It would be interesting to see a large table of countries for men also. I don’t mean to suggest that in most areas men do not have advantages – they do. But in some areas such as education, health, life expectancy men constantly do worse and it would be interesting to see what the gaps are in different countries.Tags: country rankings, women
The Herald reports:
The Indian lawyer for two of the four Delhi gang rapists sentenced to hang last week has criticised the victim’s parents for allowing her to go out at night with a boy, and claimed he would have “burnt her alive” if she had been his daughter.
The victim, a 23-year-old physiotherapy student, was attacked by five men and a juvenile on a bus she boarded with her boyfriend. The couple were on their way home from a popular Delhi shopping mall on December 16 last year.
She was gang-raped and attacked with an iron rod. She died two weeks later in hospital.
AP Singh, a defence lawyer who represented two of the convicts, claimed she had had premarital sex and said: “If my daughter was having premarital sex and moving around at night with her boyfriend, I would have burnt her alive. All parents should adopt such an attitude.”
All women should burn the defence lawyer alive for being an arsehole and see how he likes it.Tags: India, rape, women
That is the headlines in Australia, after Tony Abbott announced a 19 person Cabinet with just one female Minister in it. Afghanistan has three! NZ by comparison has six.
This to me shows the importance of making sure you have some diversity with your candidates, and this needs to start in opposition. It is too late once you are in Government as generally new MPs won’t become Ministers immediately.Tags: Australian Liberal Party, Tony Abbott, women
Produced by Stats NZ and the MWA. The 120th anniversary is on the 19th. Proud NZ was the first full country to given women the vote. Sad that some countries still treat women as second class citizens.
In the last 60 years, the stats changes have been:
Tags: Stats NZ, suffrage, women
Julie at The Hand Mirror writes:
I put together a presentation for the women themed session of the Social & Community Development Forum about the topic. My conclusions were that women’s representation seems to be plateauing at around 35%, and the problem is not with the voters but with the selections.Now I have to eat my words, at least in part.Thirteen. That’s the number of women me or one of my running mates asked to run on our ticket for the Puketapapa Local Board. Each one turned us down; immediately (a few), after a bit of a think (most), after being a strong maybe (a few), after saying yes please (one). I believe every single one of them would have made a great Local Board member. Maybe, hopefully, some will in future elections.
I haven’t seen any data suggesting that female candidates in general elections do worse than male candidates. In fact, I suspect they may even do a bit better.
Of our 70 electorate MPs, 50 are male and 19 female and it is likely the new Ikaroa-Rawhiti MP will be female so say 50 to 20.
Seven (eight) of the female electorate MPs are Labour, one Maori Party and 11 National.
Like Julie, I think women do find it harder to get selected to be candidates in winnable seats, and to a degree in winnable list places. Certainly that is my observation in National. Ironically those who often are most against good female candidates, are other women.
But the biggest factor in my opinion is that which Julie has found. That actually getting women to stand can be the hardest challenge. For a number of reasons (combative environment, hours, children etc) significantly fewer women wish to be MPs.
So why did these wonderful capable intelligent women turn down this great opportunity to make positive change in their neighbourhoods and surrounds? Mostly because of time. The Remuneration Authority recently calculated that Local Board members spend on average 24 hours a week on that job. My observation is that that would vary wildly amongst those currently elected, but then we are the first to experience a brand new super-city structure. Many genuinely didn’t realise the time commitment when they stood and haven’t been able to rearrange their lives to allow for that. Others seem to think they can do the job justice by limiting their time to a few hours a week. It will be interesting to see how the latter fare if they stand for re-election.There aren’t a lot of part time jobs out there which allow the flexibility required for local body politicians to cover everything. The pay for being a local board member isn’t enough to ditch other income options entirely, for most. I get $36,000 a year (before tax) and I have so much respect for those who get by on that alone; I work two days a week in another job as well. I gave up an $80K+ pa job to do this (and I don’t regret it except when I go shopping).So the time issue is considerable; wondering if you could keep doing your other job, whether your boss would let you go part time, potentially giving up a role you love or a project you wanted to see through, and then there’s working in with other obligations like family, being on a Board of Trustees, perhaps a health condition, or wanting to be able to travel.There were a lot of other practical considerations too; what if I have a baby? Does it get nasty? How autonomous is the role or does the chair order everyone around? Would it create a conflict of interest with this other thing I’m involved in? How much does it cost? While the overriding factor given was time, all of these and more were in the mix for some.What I noticed from this was how almost every woman was carefully thinking myriad factors through. Less focused on “do I want to do this, would I be good at this” but instead on “can I actually do this?”In contrast there was no issue finding men to run. There almost never is, from my political experience of the last fifteen plus years. The men I’ve observed have largely been more likely to say yes, to put themselves forward, and worry about how it will all work out if they get elected after polling day, not before.
A fascinating article on Alter Net by Alyssa Goldstein:
In the 1600s, a man named James Mattock was expelled from the First Church of Boston. His crime? It wasn’t using lewd language or smiling on the sabbath or anything else that we might think the Puritans had disapproved of. Rather, James Mattock had refused to have sex with his wife for two years. Though Mattock’s community clearly saw his self-deprivation as improper, it is quite possible that they had his wife’s suffering in mind when they decided to shun him. The Puritans believed that sexual desire was a normal and natural part of human life for both men and women (as long as it was heterosexual and confined to marriage), but that women wanted and needed sex more than men. A man could choose to give up sex with relatively little trouble, but for a woman to be so deprived would be much more difficult for her. …The idea that men are naturally more interested in sex than women is ubiquitous that it’s difficult to imagine that people ever believed differently. And yet for most of Western history, from ancient Greece to beginning of the nineteenth century, women were assumed to be the sex-crazed porn fiends of their day. In one ancient Greek myth, Zeus and Hera argue about whether men or women enjoy sex more. They ask the prophet Tiresias, whom Hera had once transformed into a woman, to settle the debate. He answers, “if sexual pleasure were divided into ten parts, only one part would go to the man, and and nine parts to the woman.”
The story of how this stereotype became reversed is not a simple one to trace, nor did it happen evenly and all at once. Historian Nancy Cott points to the rise of evangelical Protestantism as the catalyst of this change, at least in New England. Protestant ministers whose congregations were increasingly made up mainly of middle-class white women probably saw the wisdom in portraying their congregants as moral beings who were especially suited to answering the call of religion, rather than as besmirched seductresses whose fate was sealed in Eden. Women both welcomed this portrayal and helped to construct it. It was their avenue to a certain level of equality with men, and even superiority. Through the gospel, Christian women were “exalted above human nature, raised to that of angels,” as the 1809 book The Female Friend, or The Duties of Christian Virgins put it. The emphasis on sexual purity in the book’s title is telling. If women were to be the new symbols of Protestant religious devotion, they would have to sacrifice the acknowledgement of their sexual desires. Though even the Puritans had believed that it was perfectly acceptable for both men and women to desire sexual pleasure within the confines of marriage, women could now admit to desiring sex in order to bond with their husbands or fulfill their “maternal urges.” As Cott put it, “Passionlessness was on the other side of the coin which paid, so to speak, for women’s admission to moral equality.”
By positioning themselves as naturally chaste and virtuous, Protestant women could make the case for themselves as worthy moral and intellectual equals.
I sometimes wonder how people in 100 years time will look back on our society today?
The Economist reports:
IF YOU are a working woman, you would do well to move to New Zealand—or if that is a little out of the way, you could try one of the Nordic countries. To mark International Women’s Day, The Economist has compiled its own “glass-ceiling index” to show where women have the best chance of equal treatment at work. Based on data mainly from the OECD, it compares five indicators across 26 countries: the number of men and women respectively with tertiary education; female labour-force participation; the male-female wage gap; the proportion of women in senior jobs; and net child-care costs relative to the average wage. The first four are given equal weighting, the fifth a lower one, since not all working women have children. New Zealand scores high on all the indicators.
The index weighting is 23% each for the first four factors and 8% for child-care costs.
NZ has a far higher proportion of women than men in tertiary education which will be part of the reason NZ is ranked the best place in the world to be a working woman.Tags: country rankings, The Economist, women
Nevil Gibson writes in NBR:
New research by economists Siwan Anderson and Debraj Ray estimates that in India, more than 2m women are missing in a given year.
The economists found that roughly 12% of the missing women disappear at birth, 25% die in childhood, 18% at the reproductive ages, and 45% at older ages.
They found that women died more from “injuries” in a given year than while giving birth – injuries, they say, “appear to be indicator of violence against women.”
Deaths from fire-related incidents, they say, is a major cause – each year more than 100,000 women are killed by fires in India. The researchers say many cases could be linked to demands over a dowry leading to women being set on fire. Research also found a large number of women died of heart diseases.
These findings point to life-long neglect of women in India.
The scale of the abuse is simply staggering. If you adjusted for the respective population sizes, that would be like 20,000 women a year just going missing in NZ. it would be 500 women a year being killed by fires.
It sounds like this gang rape murder may be the catalyst that leads to actual significant change. Let’s hope so.
Tags: India, women
Tracey Chatterton at Stuff reports:
A partner in a Napier legal firm is boycotting the annual Law Society Christmas party because it is being held in a club that will not allow women as members.
Alison McEwan, of Langley Twigg Law, recently tweeted: “The Law Society is having their annual Xmas do at Hawke’s Bay Club which does not allow female members – so I won’t go.”
Ms McEwan was reluctant to talk to The Dominion Post because two of her senior partners were “stalwarts” of the club, but she did say: “Women had to fight to get the vote. I’m not prepared to let that part of our history go, I’m not prepared to take that for granted.”
President Alan Cooper confirmed that the Hawke’s Bay Club, established in 1863, had never had a female member.
“It’s been this way for 150 years,” he said. “Why would a woman want to be a member?”
He said it was not deliberate discrimination. “There’s areas of the club where you can entertain women.”
What the bedrooms?
Now don’t get me wrong. I support the right of the club to be exclusionary in its membership. They are a private club.
But what I don’t get is why would anyone want to belong to a club that bans women?
I couldn’t think of anything worse to belong to (well maybe Grey Power).
Luke Harding at the Guardian reports:
Saudi Arabia has been accused of behaving like Big Brother after introducing technology that alerts male “guardians” by text whenever women under their guardianship leave the country.
The kingdom already bans women from driving and excludes them from most workplaces. It also disapproves of women’s sport. Since last week it has been operating a new electronic system that tracks all cross-border movements.
The system functions even if a woman is travelling with her husband or male “guardian”, with a text sent immediately to the man. Saudi women must get formal approval from their guardians to travel abroad, and have to hand in an infamous “yellow slip”, signed by a male, at the airport or border.
Women in Saudi Arabia are like chattels. Their culture is deeply flawed, to put it mildly.
Women need the permission of their guardian to marry, divorce, travel, study, get a job, open a bank account, have non-vital surgery etc. I suspect slaves only had a few more rights than some women in Saudia Arabia.
If a Saudi woman’s husband dies, and she wishes to remarry – she needs the permission of her son!
And don’t even start me on honor killings or sentencing rape victims to punishments because they were alone with a man.Tags: Saudi Arabia, women
I was on a panel at the recent Miro Summit on gender diversity in the boardroom. My speaking notes are here.
As I said, I am not a fan of any sort of quota system, but I do think that companies do better with diversity (in all its forms) on their board.
Anyway for those interested in this area, Women on Boards have a Gender Diversity Summit on the 1st of November. Their keynote speaker is Dr Sharon Lord, who in her 30s was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Ronald Reagan. Lord lives in NZ for five years.Tags: NZX, women
I just took part in a panel and debate/discussion on gender diversity on NZX listed boards. This was at the NZ Initiative’s Miro Summit. Was a very interesting discussion with contributions from some very experienced board directors – both male and female.
It is Chatham House rules, so can’t quote people directly but I can quote my own remarks, which are below:
New Zealand has a reasonably good track record of achievement for women.
Yesterday was the 119th anniversary of the day women in NZ got the vote, after Governor Lord Glasgow signed the new Electoral Act into law – making NZ the first independent country to do so.
Some of the arguments against suffrage included “Would the home-loving New Zealand wife be ‘unsexed’ by participation in politics, her grace and softness lost? Would her husband be less than a man to allow her to participate? Would the reform lead to unthinkable role reversals where wives made the speeches and husbands fried the chops?”
Personally I quite like frying chops, and thinks we can agree we have come a long way in 119 years.
As many of us know we recently had a female Prime Minister (as was her predecessor) a female Governor-General, Speaker, Chief Justice, and CEO of the then largest private sector company.
However that does not mean all is rosy for women of course. We have research showing women get paid less than men on average. I won’t fall into the trap of Alasdair Thompson and repeat his suggestion as to the cause. There are in fact a number of factors behind the average pay difference. One of the most interesting is that there is a pay differential even very early on in a professional career – long before factors should as time off for children comes into play. It seems the reason might be that young men are more aggressive pay negotiators – they will push for more pay, while young women tend to accept whatever the employer offers.
But to put things in context, the gender pay gap in NZ is the 2nd lowest in the OECD.
NZX has just 9% of directors who are women on their top 100 board. The ASX is up to 13% or their top 200. The NZX numbers may improve with their new disclosure rule, but frankly both 9% and 13% are embarrassingly low numbers. To be fair to Australia I understand 25% of new appointments are women following a voluntary gender disclosure rule. NZX of course is implementing a mandatory one. In the US the Fortune 500 companies have 16% female directors.
Now one can take a view, so what. Does it matter if boards are all men, as 57% of NZX100 boards are? Should we be gender-blind when it comes to board members? Personally I think diversity is important on boards – not just gender diversity, but skills diversity and personality diversity also. A board of seven insurance actuaries would be as unbalanced as a board comprised of seven entrepreneurs such as Rod Drury.
But does gender matter? Well there is an old book called men are from Mars and women are from Venus and while that is about relationships, I think it reflects that men and women do often think differently. There are some advertisements that men love and women loathe, and vice-versa.
There is also some empirical research. A study of Fortune 500 companies in the US from the 25% of companies that had the most female board members had 53% higher return on equity than those companies in the bottom 25% in terms of female board members. This is a correlation, not necessarily causative, but still powerful research. It would be very interesting to see someone apply the same research methodology to NZ, and see if the results are the same. Maybe Oliver can add it to his work list!
Some say there are not enough women who have the commercial experience to be directors of NZX companies. Putting aside the fact this can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, I don’t accept this.
For many years now more women than men graduate from university. In 2010 55% of commerce and business graduates were women. 59% of law graduates are women. And overall 64% of all graduates are women. On a separate issue, we need to do something about male education in this country.
I’ve been on a couple of company boards as a non-executive director. All four of my boards chairs have been women, and while these were small organisations, I certainly rate their ability to serve on boards of larger companies if they had the opportunity. One of them in fact has served on almost a dozen central and local government owned company boards with distinction, including major SOEs. She’s a fellow of the Institute of Directors yet until last year I believe she had never been on the board of a NZX listed company.
23% of IOD members are women, which means there are roughly 1,300 female directors in New Zealand of whom only 45 are on an NZX100 board. In the state sector 41% of directors are women. So again I don’t accept that the 9% figure is simply because there are not enough suitable women. I note two of our largest law firms are now chaired by women – Russel McVeagh and Minters.
But despite the fact we do have a clear problem, I do not favour mandated quotas for board members, for six reasons.
- Philosophical – not the role of the state to tell shareholders who to put on their boards. Companies are entitled to make bad decisions. We already see too much effort from the Government in trying to tell both people and businesses what to do.
- Slippery Slope – why stop at mandated gender diversity. Race and age could well have arguments made for them as we have few Maori and few young directors. I think age is arguably just as important in terms of having diversity of thought around the board table.
- If we single out gender as a proxy for diversity, then we may give a false confidence and weaken efforts to improve diversity in other areas.
- One size doesn’t fit all. While it is unwise for most companies to have all male boards, companies which specialise in, for example, men’s clothing might be fine. Mind you, in my experience most men have women choose their clothes for them, so maybe not the best example.
- A quota may not lead to more women on boards – just lead to Roseanne Meo being on 20 boards instead of 10!
- With a quota system, there will be a suspicion that some appointments will be tokenistic, and some female directors will be judged as having succeeded in getting board appointments only because of their gender. That’s unfair to them.
So having identified the problem, and also rejected quotas as a solution, what would I do.
Well I think the problem is the method of recruitment for Directors amongst large NZX100 companies. Most recruitment seems to be done informally amongst those who are known to current Directors, which makes it hard for new Directors to break through.
NGOs and smaller companies often formally advertise for directors, as does the Crown and Local bodies. It is rare you see an NZX company advertise.
Why on earth do large companies still hand pick directors? Imagine if your CEO told you that they are not going to advertise for a COO, but instead appoint someone he or she knows to be well qualified. You’d tell the CEO to pull their head in, and advertise the role. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I think the solution, or a partial solution, is not quotas, but instead just persuading NZX companies to operate open recruitment processes for directors. The new disclosure policy should identify the companies that have all male boards, and it will be very interesting to compare how many of them do open recruitment of directors, compared to those who use the shoulder tapping method.
So in summary I do believe that companies should be allowed to make mistakes, and they should be allowed to have all male boards, but believe the combination of the initiatives by NZX, the IOD, the Govt and more generally the business community will see NZX boards become move diverse over the next five to ten years. But even if they do not, then the Government has no more of a role mandating gender quotas on private company boards, than they do regulating the maximum pressure of shower nozzles.
I should point out that one Director pointed out most NZX companies do do searches for new Directors, rather than just approach someone they know – however they tend not to advertise – rather use specialist recruitment agencies.Tags: NZ Initiative, NZX, women
The mayor of a German town has sparked controversy by introducing special “easy” parking spots for women.
Mayor Gallus Strobel, from the Black Forest town of Triberg, told Germany’s Spiegel magazine he introduced the spots because men were better at parking than women.
The women’s spaces, which are marked by female symbols, are reportedly better lit and wider, while the men-only spots have concrete pillars to negotiate and can only be reversed into.
Strobel told the magazine that women were welcome to attempt parking in the men-only spots, but that “men are, as a rule, a little better at such challenges”. He denied accusations of sexism, pointing out that there were 10 women-only spots in the carpark compared to only two men-only spots.
This is an excellent idea. I think the Wellington City Council should copy this initiative. Just as we have special parks for disabled drivers, I think special parks for women is an excellent initiative.Tags: parking, women
Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn blogs:
Save the Children has released its annual State of the World’s Mothers report [PDF], showing that New Zealand is the 4th best country in the world to be a mother. This is an improvement from last year, when we ranked 6th. Its a legacy of the Clark government, and its policies around paid parental leave and early childhood education that we do so well on these sorts of indices. But as the Scandinavian countries above us show, we can do better; sadly, the present government just doesn’t seem to regard it as a priority.
So we improve in 2011 over 2010, and this is nothing to do with the present Government, and all to do with the Government that got chucked out in 2008. Sure.
As it happens, if you actually read about the report, most of the factors have little to do with Government. They are:
It seems why we are 4th overall is because we are not very low down in any factor.
The worst place to be a mother incidentally is the Niger. Among more developed countries is it Alaania.Tags: country rankings, No Right Turn, women
The SST report:
A generation of young, educated New Zealand women is being lost to the workforce because they can’t afford childcare.
Many tertiary educated and trained mothers are deciding to retrain as teachers or nurses, professions that offer more flexible work options. …
New Zealand has one of the lowest workforce participation rates for women in the 25-34 age group compared to the rest of the OECD.
Labour’s early childhood education spokeswoman Sue Moroney said the government’s reluctance to look at the issue was causing skills and talent to be lost to the workforce.
Nordic countries such as Norway and Sweden had the highest participation rates, and also spent the most on childcare, and had generous paid parental leave provisions.
I went looking for research on this, and found this paper. It’s 40 pages long and has every stat you can think of on workforce participation by women, written by a (then) Treasury boffin. One thing he noted was:
The previous section has shown that differences between countries can be attributed in part to differences in the participation of, and prevalence of, different types of families. At least some of the difference between countries, however, might simply be due to the definition of “participation”. We illustrate this by comparing participation rates in New Zealand to those in the highest-participating countries in the OECD, the Nordic countries.
In official statistics, women on paid parental leave should be counted as employed, even though they are not working.21 Nordic countries have amongst the most generous paid parental leave provisions in the OECD
That is worth remembering. In these statistics, you are counted as still being in the workforce if on paid parental leave, so there is no surprise there is a correlation. They modeled for this impact:
The maximum effect of these differences in paid parental leave can be modelled by assuming that women take the maximum leave available for all their children and adjusting the reported participation figures to reflect this. Figure 24 shows that after this adjustment there is a marked ‘dipping’ in participation rates in the Nordic countries. When adjusted, the profile of women’s employment rates in these countries loses its n-shape, and becomes much more like the profile in New Zealand. The difference in participation rates of women aged 25 to 39 years is also markedly reduced after adjustment.
So extending paid parental leave makes the stats looks better, because women on paid parental leave are counted as being in the workforce. But whether it actually makes a significant difference to the number of women actually being in paid work, is far less clear. Some other interesting stats:
Among New Zealand women, the presence and age of children, being a sole or partnered mother, and level of qualifications have a strong effect, and each factor has an effect which is independent of the other two. Mothers with different combinations of these characteristics have widely varying participation rates. At one extreme, for example, sole parents with a pre-school child and no school qualification have a participation rate of only 32%. At the other extreme, partnered mothers with a child aged 10-17 and with a post-school qualification have a participation rate of 91%.
And for the 25 – 34 year old age group:
Compared to other OECD countries, New Zealand has a relatively high overall female participation rate. Yet, participation rates for women between the ages of 25 and 39 are conspicuously low by international standards. Few other countries show a dip in participation rates in the peak childbearing ages. This point of difference seems to be driven by a combination, in New Zealand, of relatively low participation rates among mothers with young children and sole mothers, together with high fertility rates and high proportions of sole parent families.
So arguably the welfare reforms which will discourage sole parent families to have further children, will increase the participation rates, as well as the increased work-testing requirements.
The research also notes (and this was done in 2005 when Labour was Government):
Differences in participation between countries may also reflect differences in government policies (such as tax and benefit policies) or social norms (such as the attitudes towards, and expectations of, women working compared to looking after their children). OECD countries can be grouped according to their pattern of women’s participation across ages, and these groupings to a considerable extent reflect similarities in the countries’ values, social conventions, institutions and recent histories. Not surprisingly, New Zealand’s profile is most similar to Australia and the United Kingdom: countries with whom we share a common heritage. The participation profile of New Zealand men, relative to the OECD, is also similar in many ways to that of New Zealand women, with relatively high participation rates for younger and older people, but relatively low rates for people aged around 25-39. These similarities support the case for the existence of particular “country effects”, which affect both women and men.
I think cultural issues are always significant.
The paper concludes:
How does all this inform the public policy question of whether, and how, to encourage the greater participation of women in New Zealand? Some initial thoughts are be hazarded here. Firstly, since different groups of women, and mothers, have widely differing participation rates, any policies which aim to increase the participation of women would need to be carefully focused. One type of policy is unlikely to work for all women. Also, since some groups of women already have high participation rates, policies which aim to increase this participation even further may incur high deadweight costs.
A very interesting paper. The issues are far more complex than paid parental leave.Tags: employment, paid parental leave, women
There are not a lot of glass ceilings left in New Zealand for women to break through. Two of the last three prime ministers were women. Two of the last five governors-general were women. The Speaker of the House before the current one was a woman. The chief justice role has been held by a woman since 1999 and Dame Sian is not due to retire until 2021. Also the then largest company in New Zealand (Telecom) was headed by a woman just a few years ago. …
Though in 2011 there are not many glass ceilings to break, there is still a serious under-representation of women in Parliament. Sadly the proportion of women in Parliament dropped this year for the first time since 1996.
Now I’m not one of those who advocates that Parliament must or should exactly match the population in gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, left-handedness and so on. I think competence and quality is the most important qualification. However, so long as the MPs are high quality and competent, I think it is desirable that Parliament is indeed a House of Representatives, and our Representatives do reflect the diversity of New Zealand.
So I would like to see more quality, competent women elected into Parliament. But working out what the major barriers are is not so easy. …
dTags: By the numbers, Stuff, women
Anthony Hubbard in the SST writes:
Many people think women have taken their full place in our national politics. In fact, the number of women MPs has plateaued at a bit over 33%. Every second Kiwi is female, but only every third MP. This is the persistent pattern, despite the blip that brought four women to the top for a short while last decade. It won’t do.
MMP has helped. In 1993, the last election under the old first-past-the-post system, one in five MPs were women. The figure shot up to 29% at the first MMP election, but in the four since then it has sort of stuck. Is this as good as it gets?
Hubbard looks at the National party list and includes some comments from me.
Some say the problem runs deeper: that women are more reluctant to stand for office. National Party presidents have grizzled for decades that the party wants more women candidates but that women won’t put themselves forward.
There are plenty of possible reasons. One is that women candidates still get a lot of flak that men candidates don’t. People want to know how women MPs will care for their children, but not male MPs. Women MPs have their looks, dress sense and sexuality discussed more commonly than men.
I think this is sadly, true. It is very tough for female candidates.
It’s possible that women are less likely to want to be MPs, and not just because of the sexism they face. Perhaps the whole lunatic life of the politician is less likely to appeal to them. Perhaps fewer women have that particular kind of ambition. If this is true, why? There are a library of PhDs waiting here to be written, and a lot more hard thinking needs to be done by the parties.
Research I would like to see done, would look at the barriers in stages:
My gut reaction is that once women get to be candidates, they get elected in the same proportion as men. The challenges are now around the selection stage.Tags: women
Publicly listed companies will come under new pressure to promote women to boards and management under proposed new stock exchange rules. NZX chief executive Mark Weldon told the Listener that the stock exchange will be proposing new rules that will require all publicly listed companies to declare how many women and minorities they have in senior roles and as directors.
“What we would intend to consult on and would seek feedback on is a proposal that would see companies required to report on or disclose on the gender and other diversity makeup of board and management.” The change is to be part of NZX’s biannual rules review process, and could take force from June 2012.
I’m firmly against any sort of quota system for publicly listed companies. A quota would demand existing female directors, who might then be seen as token appointments.
However transparency in reporting is another issue.
NZX’s moves follow a rule change by the Australian Stock Exchange has led to a 50% jump in representation of women on boards in the space of just 18 months. By the beginning of August, 12.7% of Australia’s top 200 listed companies had women directors, compared to 9.3% for the top 100 listed companies here. The Australian policy recommends publicly listed companies have a gender diversity policy, and that they report progress on meeting its goals on it regularly.
The wording Weldon is proposing goes further in several ways: it is mandatory rather than voluntary; it demands direct reporting of diversity numbers; and it goes beyond gender to include diversity generally, which includes ethnic diversity.
I’ve spent around a decade on a couple of company boards. By coincidence all four board chairs I have worked with have been women, and all have been excellent directors and chairs. There are many female directors who would add value to a top 100 listed company, and there is a bit of an old boys network because directors are inevitably always recommended by existing directors, so a lot of it is down to who knows who.
So I do not have a huge problem with reporting gender diversity, but I do get concerned over the wider diversity requirement. Will boards have to report Maori, PI, and Asians? And maybe how many of a particular religion or sexuality?
Diversity is good, but boards tend to be quite small – 10 or so directors. So while one can usefully look at gender diversity, I think it should not extend beyond that. Otherwise you may end up with boards seeking a stereotypical gay catholic asian for directorships!
UPDATE: The Institute of Directors announced last week:
The Institute of Directors (IoD) has given the go ahead to a new mentoring scheme aimed at increasing the number of women on NZX-listed boards. The IoD’s Chairmen Mentoring Programme will enlist up to 30 chairmen and senior directors of major companies to work with experienced and qualified women in a year-long programme.
That’s a really good idea.Tags: NZX, women
Deborah Coddington writes in the HoS:
And what this census doesn’t reveal is how many women turn down requests to sit on boards as company directors.
Maybe they are smarter than men, and don’t wish to expose themselves, under the Companies Act 1993, to the legal and reputation risks when a corporate curdles from the heat and shareholders cast around for someone to blame.
Feminism, to a liberal, is not equality of numbers just to please the Human Rights Commission.
Equality is about freedom of choice. So long as women can choose to be directors of public companies, or run their own successful companies – such as Trilogy – or even eschew the red-tape hassles, Inland Revenue nightmares, staffing problems and opt to be an employee, then we shouldn’t fret.
I partially agree with Deborah, but not totally.
First of all I should state that I’ve served under four different board chairs on two different boards which I am or was a non-executive director or. All four Chairs were female, and I’ve actually learnt a lot about governance from them.
Directorships are not quite like other jobs. While some companies do undertake a public recruitment process for directors, other do operate very much on an invitation basis, and it comes down to whom the existing directors know.
So I don’t think the lack of women on commercial boards is just because women want to avoid the liability that comes with directorships. I think the “old boys” network is an issue. But I also note that more and more women are undertaking IOD company director courses.
And is there anything to suggest women on their boards would improve things? Might just as well put blow-up dolls around the board table.
I’m adamantly against any quotas, but boards work well if they have a diversity of experience and knowledge. And it is a fact of life that overall women and men respond differently to various stuff. You often have different marketing strategies for female and male customers. So having no women on your board, may mean a valuable perspective is lost.
But I do agree with Deborah that often part of the problem is women not putting themselves forward. In the political realm, some groups complain that women only make up around 35% of Parliament.
But I don’t think that this is because NZers are reluctant to vote for women. I think it is because relatively fewer women seek political office.
It would be interesting to see some stats on what percentage of nominees (those seeking candidacy) in the major parties are women, what percentage of candidates are women, and compare that to the percentage of MPs that are women. This would help ascertain whether the under-representation is because women do not seek nomination, or because they do not gain a candidacy or whether they do not get elected.
I’ve done a quick analysis of the 2008 election. In the 70 electorate contests, I’ve looked at the genders of the winner and runner up. In 34 seats they were both male. In just five they were both female. Of the 31 seats where they were of different genders, 17 had the male candidate win and 14 the female candidate.Tags: Deborah Coddington, women