Framework for the Future: EEO Progress for Women
Women comprise just over half of the New Zealand population. According to the 2001 Census, 51.2% of New Zealanders were women. The main reason why women constitute a majority of the population is that they tend to live longer than men. Women make up 51.1% of New Zealand’s working age population. When judged in terms of their participation rates, the industries they are associated with, and their occupations and earnings, women as a group appear to have quite distinctive experiences of the paid labour force compared with men. Often, the distinctions are striking. Here we discuss these distinctions and explore various explanations for why women have not been attaining the same status in the labour force as men. From the outset, we should note that, as revealed in the New Zealand Time Use Survey, while women and men participate in the same amount of productive work, women do more unpaid work, while men do more paid work (Statistics New Zealand 2001). Information contained in the 2001 Census also indicates that women are more likely than men to look after children in the household and to look after others who are ill or disabled.[i]
Participation in the Paid Labour Force
Among New Zealand’s population of working-age women, 59.0% currently participate in the labour force, either on a full-time or part-time basis. As has been the case historically, women participate at significantly lower rates than men, for whom the equivalent rate is 74.1%.[ii] As shown in Figure 4.4, over their lives, individuals tend to change their engagement in the labour force. For example, in the 15-19 age group, the participation rate tends to be around 55.0%, and it is much the same for men as for women. This is because many people at this age are focusing on their studies, rather than working. For men, participation rates tend to continuously rise with age until the time when men get into their 50s. For women, a different pattern is observed. While participation rates increase for women during their 20s, they drop back for women in the 30-34 year age group, before picking up again for women in the 35-39 year age group. Participation rates for women are highest when they are in their 40s. This pattern reflects the tendency for women to take time out of the paid labour force to devote to childbearing and caring for children. In 2003, the average age for women in New Zealand to give birth to their first child was 31. Women’s prime years for child birth and child rearing also coincide with prime years in employment. But because women must interrupt their careers, at least to some degree, to bear and raise children, women often forgo opportunities to move up the career ladder at a similar pace to men (McGregor 2002: 2). This has significant implications concerning who gets to hold senior positions and key managerial and decision-making roles in the workplace.
Figure 4.4: Workforce Participation by Age Cohort and Gender, 2003
Data Source: Statistics New Zealand Household Labour Force Survey, June 2003.
Over the years from 1987 through to 2003, there has been a tendency for the
participation rates of men and women to converge somewhat, as shown in Figure 4.5.
This convergence has arisen from two sources. The first is a mild decline in the
participation rate of men in the paid labour force. The second source is an increase in
the participation rate of women. A closer analysis of changes in the participation
rates of different age cohorts of women reveals that the overall increases in the
participation rates of women have been driven by increasing levels of participation
among women aged 25-29. Figure 4.6 shows that the participation rate of this group
grew from 60.6% in June 1987 to 69.9% in June 2003. This change can be attributed
to both the tendency for women to put off starting a family until they are in their late
twenties or early thirties and the increasing tendency for women to combine parenting
with at least some level of participation in the paid labour force.
Over the years from 1987 through to 2003, there has been a tendency for the
participation rates of men and women to converge somewhat, as shown in Figure 4.5.
This convergence has arisen from two sources. The first is a mild decline in the
participation rate of men in the paid labour force. The second source is an increase in
the participation rate of women. A closer analysis of changes in the participation
rates of different age cohorts of women reveals that the overall increases in the
participation rates of women have been driven by increasing levels of participation
among women aged 25-29. Figure 4.6 shows that the participation rate of this group
grew from 60.6% in June 1987 to 69.9% in June 2003. This change can be attributed
to both the tendency for women to put off starting a family until they are in their late
twenties or early thirties and the increasing tendency for women to combine parenting
with at least some level of participation in the paid labour force.
Data Source: Statistics New Zealand Household Labour Force Survey, 1987-2003, June series.
Over the years from 1987 through to 2003, there has been a tendency for the
participation rates of men and women to converge somewhat, as shown in Figure 4.5.
This convergence has arisen from two sources. The first is a mild decline in the
participation rate of men in the paid labour force. The second source is an increase in
the participation rate of women. A closer analysis of changes in the participation
rates of different age cohorts of women reveals that the overall increases in the
participation rates of women have been driven by increasing levels of participation
among women aged 25-29. Figure 4.6 shows that the participation rate of this group
grew from 60.6% in June 1987 to 69.9% in June 2003. This change can be attributed
to both the tendency for women to put off starting a family until they are in their late
10 Figures reported in Statistics New Zealand’s quarterly Household Labour Force Survey, June 2003,
retrieved via INFOS. Note that the June 2003 survey was the most recent at the time of writing.
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 +
Male Female
Most common age for women to bear first child = 31.
41
twenties or early thirties and the increasing tendency for women to combine parenting
with at least some level of participation in the paid labour force.
participation rates of men and women to converge somewhat, as shown in Figure 4.5.
This convergence has arisen from two sources. The first is a mild decline in the
participation rate of men in the paid labour force. The second source is an increase in
the participation rate of women. A closer analysis of changes in the participation
rates of different age cohorts of women reveals that the overall increases in the
participation rates of women have been driven by increasing levels of participation
among women aged 25-29. Figure 4.6 shows that the participation rate of this group
grew from 60.6% in June 1987 to 69.9% in June 2003. This change can be attributed
to both the tendency for women to put off starting a family until they are in their late
10 Figures reported in Statistics New Zealand’s quarterly Household Labour Force Survey, June 2003,
retrieved via INFOS. Note that the June 2003 survey was the most recent at the time of writing.
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 +
Male Female
Most common age for women to bear first child = 31.
41
twenties or early thirties and the increasing tendency for women to combine parenting
with at least some level of participation in the paid labour force.
In 2002, the Government adopted a paid parental leave law. This entitles eligible women to twelve weeks of paid parental leave, funded by the government, which they can transfer to their partners, if they wish. To be eligible for this leave, women must have worked for at least one year for at least ten hours per week for the same employer. The payment replaces existing earnings, but only up to the level of 0.7 of the average female wage. In the first year and a half of its operation, 19,000 employees had received paid parental leave (approximately 26,000 employed women have babies each year) at a cost of $51 million (New Zealand Herald 2004). Of those who took up the scheme in its first six months, 22% had returned to employment and of those 22%, 93% had returned to work for the same employer that they had been working for before taking parental leave (Gravitas Research and Strategy Ltd 2003).[iii] In December 2004 the paid parental scheme will be increased to 14 weeks for employees who have worked in New Zealand for at least six months. While this law represents a positive move, one that recognises the contributions women of childbearing age make both to economic production and social reproduction, it is minimalist in its provisions. It will be interesting to observe in the future the effect that this policy change will have on women’s labour force participation rates. We consider that more could be done to support women with young children, so that they need not choose between working and raising children. The economy would greatly benefit from policies that did more to ensure that parents could remain integrated into the labour force while still taking time to spend with their babies and youngsters.
Differences in participation yield a labour force composed of more men than women, with women currently making up 45.6% of participants. When the labour force is divided into those who work part-time and those who work full-time, the gendered nature of labour force participation becomes much more apparent. Currently, women make up just 37.3% of New Zealand’s full-time labour force, but 72.4% of the part-time labour force. Such statistics highlight a well-understood feature of employment patterns in New Zealand. That is, men and women tend to have different relationships to the paid labour force, and those differences reflect gendered divisions of labour within the household. Women have long assumed more responsibilities for domestic work and childrearing than have men. They continue to do so. As a result, the many organisations and processes that serve to create the New Zealand labour market are subject to major influence from the informal – but no less significant – institutional arrangements inherent in New Zealand families. Over the period since 1990, changes have been observed in these statistics regarding male and female employment patterns. However, the overall picture is one of continuity rather than change.[iv]
Participation by Industry
An industry-level analysis reveals more about the gendered nature of labour force participation in New Zealand. Such an analysis also offers an essential prelude to discussions about workplace discrimination against women and efforts to secure equal employment opportunities. Here, we focus on employment in the non-agricultural sectors. The International Labour Organisation (2003: 42) suggests that tracking changes in female participation rates in non-agricultural sectors is a useful way to assess progress towards equal employment opportunities for women. Figure 4.7 presents a gender breakdown of industries as at June 2003.
Assessed in terms of full-time equivalent employees, four sectors are female-dominated: accommodation, café, and restaurant; finance and insurance; education; and health and community services. These four sectors employ 27.9% of New Zealand’s non-agricultural labour force but 42.6% of the female labour force. Of these sectors, the most heavily female-dominated are health and community services and education. The health and community services labour force has 84.5% female participants. The education labour force has 67.6% female participants. Together, these two sectors employ 31.8% of the female labour force.[v] Five sectors exhibit gender balance. One third (33.1%) of all participants in Five sectors exhibit gender balance. One third (33.1%) of all participants in New Zealand’s non-agricultural labour force and 35.9% of female participants can be found in these sectors. They are: retail trade; property and business services; government administration and defence; cultural and recreational services; and personal and other services. Six sectors are male dominated. They are: forestry and mining; manufacturing; electricity, gas, and water supply; construction; wholesale trade; and transport, storage, and communication. Here we find 38.9% of the participants in New Zealand’s non-agricultural labour force but 54.5% of male participants. In the manufacturing sector, 73.1% of employees are male. This sector alone employes 24.7% of the men in New Zealand’s non-agricultural labour force. In the relatively smaller sectors of construction and forestry and mining, men constitute 90.7% of employees.
These patterns of gender difference in labour force composition have been relatively stable across time, however some changes deserve comment. First, from 1990 to 2003 the labour force of the heavily-masculine electricity, gas, and water supply sector shrunk by 58.4%. This change affected men in the sector more than women. As a result, the sector changed from having 86.6% male employees to one where males comprise 72.9% of the labour force. Likewise, the government administration and defence labour force shrunk by 19.0% over this period, with the male portion of this labour force declining by 29.8% compared with a decline of 7.1% in the female portion. In 1990, women made up 47.8% of the government sector’s labour force; in 2003 they made up 54.8%. Second, from 1990 to 2003 major expansions occurred in the education and health and community services sectors. While already heavily-feminised in 1990, expansions in these sectors have seen them become even more female-dominated. With the exception of the relatively small forestry and mining industries, there have been no moves towards greater intensification of male participation in the male-dominated industries.
Occupations and Earnings
Labour force segregation by gender can manifest itself in a variety of ways. Beyond examining segregation across industries – horizontal segregation – we can also examine segregation by occupational groups. Although some occupational groups tend to cluster within particular industries, it is typically the case that occupational groupings span industries. Therefore, people termed professionals can be found in many industries, as can clerks, while plant and machinery operators tend to be found most in manufacturing, but not exclusively. Since some occupations have higher status and higher levels of remuneration than others, segregation across occupational groups gives us a sense of vertical segregation in the New Zealand labour force.[vi] Figure 4.8 presents the gender composition of occupational groupings as of 2001. A reasonable amount of gender balance can be found among professionals, where women constitute 55.7% of the group, and technicians or associate professionals, where women are 51.6% of the group.[vii] However, women are under-represented among legislators, administrators, and managers (39.5%). They are even more seriously under-represented among trades workers (5.8%) and plant and machinery operators (20.4%). Women are over-represented among clerks (78.2%) and service and sales workers (64.6%).[viii] These patterns of difference across occupational groups remained quite stable in the period from 1991 to 2001. However, the proportion of women among the ranks of legislators, administrators, and managers increased from 32.3% to 39.5% – a 22.2% increase in women’s representation. In addition, the proportion of women grouped as technicians or associate professionals increased from 41.4% to 51.6% – a 24.6% increase. In contrast, women’s representation among the highly-masculine plant and machinery operators and assemblers dropped from 23.1% to 20.4%, a reduction of 11.7%.[ix]
Vertical segregation by gender in the New Zealand labour force can also be assessed by comparing the earnings of male and female workers. Taking into account full-time and part-time labour force status, in June 2003, women’s average weekly earnings amounted to just 67.2% of those for men.[x] Since women are more likely than men to work part-time, it is inevitable that their average weekly earnings will be lower. Yet this significant difference in the average earnings of women compared with men cannot be attributed solely to differences in labour force participation. Among full-time workers, the average weekly earnings of women amounted to 79.9% of those for men.[xi] Therefore, even when employed full-time, women tend to hold jobs that command considerably less pay than jobs held by men.
To further explore wage gaps between men and women, it is useful to compare average hourly earnings within and across industrial sectors. Across all non-agricultural sectors, in June 2003, on average women earned 85 cents for every dollar earned by men. By comparison, in 1990, on average women earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men. Clearly, between those years there was little change in the gender wage gap. The ILO has suggested that “the true test of an equal opportunity policy is the way it succeeds in addressing pay inequalities” (2003: 117). In New Zealand, this persistent pattern of women’s average hourly earnings being lower than men’s is observed both across the board and within each sector.
Earnings gaps might be expected to be smaller in those sectors where women make up the highest proportion of the labour force. But the evidence reveals that there is a negative relationship between the proportion of employees in a sector who are women and the size of the earnings gap between men and women in that sector. This relationship has strengthened in the years from 1990 to 2003.[xii] While women make up 84.5% of workers in health and community services, on average, women in this sector earn just 64 cents for every dollar earned by men in the sector. Similarly, in education, women make up 67.6% of the labour force but they earn only 86 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. This suggests that even in highly feminised sectors of the economy, women tend to be concentrated in the lower-paid jobs while men in these sectors tend be the ones holding more senior positions. In contrast, in the construction sector, where women make up just 10 percent of the labour force, women on average earn 93 cents for every dollar earned by men.
Legislation has supported equal employment opportunity policies in much of the state sector and local government. However, within the statistical category of government administration and defence, average hourly earnings for women as a proportion of those for men have hardly changed since 1990. At that time, women in the sector earned 78 cents for every dollar earned by men. In June 2003, the figure was 79 cents. This is despite women moving from 47.8% of the sector’s labour force to 54.8% over the same period. Clearly, equal employment opportunity efforts in the public sector, and their overall effectiveness, deserve close scrutiny.
Women in Leadership and Management
In recent times, women have held several high power and high visibility positions in New Zealand. Prime Minister Helen Clark is the country’s first elected female Prime Minister, following the first female Prime Minister, Jenny Shipley. Margaret Wilson serves as Attorney-General, Dame Sian Elias serves as Chief Justice, and Dame Silvia Cartwright serves as Governor-General. In addition, the current Cabinet contains several high-profile women, such as Ruth Dyson, Marian Hobbs and Annette King.
Turning to the world of business, we also find powerful and high-profile women, like Telecom’s chief executive Theresa Gattung and the chief executive of TelstraClear, Rosemary Howard. We could go on to list other high power and high visibility women in local government, academe, and the health sector. These women represent the changing face of power and influence in New Zealand. They also offer inspiration and serve as outstanding role models for younger women in the earlier stages of their careers. This is the good news.
The more depressing story is that women do not populate the leadership ranks in New Zealand in anywhere near the proportions that would be expected, given their numerical presence in the paid labour force. Men continue to occupy the vast majority of top leadership and management positions across the various sectors of New Zealand society.
Turning to the world of business, we also find powerful and high-profile women, like Telecom’s chief executive Theresa Gattung and the chief executive of TelstraClear, Rosemary Howard. We could go on to list other high power and high visibility women in local government, academe, and the health sector. These women represent the changing face of power and influence in New Zealand. They also offer inspiration and serve as outstanding role models for younger women in the earlier stages of their careers. This is the good news.
The more depressing story is that women do not populate the leadership ranks in New Zealand in anywhere near the proportions that would be expected, given their numerical presence in the paid labour force. Men continue to occupy the vast majority of top leadership and management positions across the various sectors of New Zealand society.
The New Zealand Business Roundtable, established in 1986, is an organisation of around 50 chief executives of major New Zealand businesses. These business leaders, whose membership is by invitation only, meet several times a year to discuss and develop points of view on matters of common concern. Through their membership fees, they support the development of policy position papers and various forms of policy advocacy. Over the years it has been operating, the Business Roundtable has consisted almost exclusively of men. At present, two women are members, an improvement on the past when often just one woman, or no women at all, were members. Of course, if the leadership of the Business Roundtable wished to make the organisation less male-dominated, a variety of steps could be taken to change the criteria for involvement and to attract women members. As is, the organisation’s membership gives an insight into who holds power in the New Zealand business environment.
Information on occupations collected in the 2001 Census serves to confirm the basic picture. Women comprised just 16.2% of those who stated their occupation as a chief executive or a managing director of a company. Other evidence confirms the limited extent to which women are found in the top echelons of business in New Zealand. A survey in 2000 of the country’s top 500 companies, as measured by number of employees, indicated that women made up 27.1% of managers. However, further analysis revealed that, of those women who were managers, just 9.0% were in the senior management ranks (McGregor, 2002). It can be concluded that within New Zealand’s top 500 companies in 2000, women comprised just 2.4% of senior managers.
Even when women serve in management positions, they are typically not as well remunerated as men in the same roles. Through her survey of the top 500 New Zealand companies, McGregor found that women in senior management roles earned 88 cents for every dollar earned by men in senior management roles. Similar differentials were found between men and women in the ranks of middle management and junior management respectively. These pay discrepancies between men and women in similar management positions can be explained by research that shows that women, as a result of their gender socialisation, tend not to haggle over salaries when being recruited or promoted to the same extent as men (Babcock and Laschever 2003).
Even when women serve in management positions, they are typically not as well remunerated as men in the same roles. Through her survey of the top 500 New Zealand companies, McGregor found that women in senior management roles earned 88 cents for every dollar earned by men in senior management roles. Similar differentials were found between men and women in the ranks of middle management and junior management respectively. These pay discrepancies between men and women in similar management positions can be explained by research that shows that women, as a result of their gender socialisation, tend not to haggle over salaries when being recruited or promoted to the same extent as men (Babcock and Laschever 2003).
Aside from serving as senior managers and chief executives in companies, people can also provide important business leadership through serving on company boards of directors. According to the New Zealand Directors’ Fees Survey produced by IBM Business Consulting, in 2003 women comprised 13.8% of company directors in New Zealand. Among the chairpersons of those boards, women comprised 3.1%. The New Zealand Institute of Directors reported in 2003 that women comprised 18.0% of its members. During her term as Prime Minister, Jenny Shipley set a target of having women comprise half the membership of statutory boards by 2000. Although this target was not reached, and is yet to be reached, Shipley’s initiative has resulted in major changes in the composition of the boards of New Zealand’s State Owned Enterprises and Crown Research Institutes. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs Action Plan for New Zealand Women lists as a milestone the achievement of 50/50 representation of government boards by 2010. Appointments are based on the skill needs of the boards in the first instance and, in that context Ministers also give consideration to the demographic make up of the board. This tends to be on a case-by-case basis. While there is no set target, the government has continued the approach of endeavouring to move the make up of the boards to better reflect the demographic make up of society. But this is always done in the context of the skills and experience each board requires.
A recent review indicates that women comprised 28.0% of board members of Crown companies in 2001. In 2003, they comprised 37.0%. This change represents a 32.1% increase over a two-year period in the representation of women as board members. Such a dramatic change in the composition of statutory boards offers compelling evidence of how rapidly improvements in representation can be instigated when strong political will and appropriate institutional support are present. In this case, the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit (CCMAU) has gone to some lengths to maintain an up-to-date database of individuals who have been screened and judged to have the experience and merit to serve as effective directors. While this database is still male-dominated, with women making up just 29.0% of those listed on it, CCMAU follows the principle that, “[w]here these [merit] criteria are met and there remains more than one suitable candidate then selection and recommendation should follow the policy dictates of balancing gender and seeking diversity” (Wheeler, 2003). CCMAU makes recommendations for directors that are approved by the responsible Cabinet Ministers. In responding to the position adopted by CCMAU, the Institute of Directors (2001) remarked that “…the government should not move away from merit criteria for the selection of board members for SOEs and CRIs. …there is no evidence to suggest that their performance is affected by a lack of diversity, real or perceived, on their boards”. But as McGregor (2002: 12) has retorted, “[e]qually, of course, there is no evidence that performance is improved by sameness and lack of diversity”. The conservative position taken by the Institute of Directors is unfortunate. Yet it is clearly a position that is widely shared (see, e.g., Birchfield 2003). This position reflects the basic disposition of men who currently benefit from a small, clubby, and anachronistic style of business governance that remains common in New Zealand.
Figure 4.9: Female Proportion of Student Population by Institutional Type, 2002
The Public Service
Since the early 1990s, women have comprised a majority of the employees in the public service. Fiona Edgar (2001) notes that women have always been better represented there than in private sector organisations, and she explains this as a function of the nature of public service work itself. “The emphasis in this sector has traditionally been placed on social equity and social justice has also served to produce working conditions which are more favourable to women” (220). In 2002, women made up 57.5% of employees in the public service. However, women comprised just 35.9% of senior management. Over time, women’s representation at the management level has grown. For example, in 1992, women comprised 17.0% of managers in the public service and, presumably, at that time, they comprised an even smaller number of senior managers. Current figures show women making up 25.7% of chief executives of government departments.[xiii] Women do not comprise a majority of employees in every government department. For the most part, women make up a majority of the staff in large service departments, such as Work and Income, Child, Youth, and Family Services, the Courts Service, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Justice. Women are under-represented in some of the major advice-giving departments, including The Treasury. They are also under-represented in departments such as Corrections, Fisheries, and Conservation (State Services Commission 2002b: 42).
In terms of remuneration, pay gaps between men and women in the public service are considerable. In 2000, on average, women in the public service earned 86 cents for every dollar earned by men. This is a better ratio than we reported earlier for the whole sector. According to the State Services Commission (2002b), much of the pay gap can be explained by occupational segregation within the public service and the tendency for female staff to be younger and have less work experience than men. A check of Census figures from 2001 shows that, in the government sector category – that is the statistical category containing the public service – women are mostly located in two occupational groups. These are clerks and technical and associate professionals. In both groups, they are over-represented compared with men.[xiv] We also know that members of these occupational groups tend to be remunerated at lower levels than those in the professionals and legislators, administrators, and managers groups, where men in the government sector are over-represented. Even so, some of the public sector pay gap remains unexplained. Significantly, the State Services Commission (2002b) has noted that “[w]here women and men work in the same occupation, women on average earn less than men, and the greatest discrepancy is in the managers’occupational group” (91).
Results of the State Services Commission’s 2000 Career Progression and Development Survey (SSC 2002a) show that 21.0% of female managers reported having experienced discrimination in the previous 12 months, compared to 11.0% of male managers. Aside from the comparative figures on remuneration and discrimination, a lot of evidence exists concerning gender bias in the public service. This statement from the State Services Commission (2002a) is representative:
Qualitative responses from women indicated that … gender discrimination was responsible for inferior access to interesting work, their inability to establish a “profile”, exclusion from networks seen to be important for career advancement (the “boys’ club”) and resulting material rewards and promotions. …[T]here were numerous comments from women feeling that they were somehow “missing out”, on the basis of their gender (102).
Under the Government’s 1997 EEO Policy to 2010, responsibility for implementation of EEO strategy was devolved to the department level. Among other things, under this policy, chief executives of government departments are required to set targets for the representation of women in their organisations as a whole and among their senior managers. The State Services Commission (2003: 40) reports that, as of June 2003, six out of 40 departments had yet to set targets for the representation of women. Of those that had, four were making little or no progress towards attaining their goals. Therefore, 25.0% of government departments appeared to have done nothing towards establishing this quite basic measure of achievement concerning the representation of women among their staff. With respect to setting and achieving targets for the placement of women in senior management roles, the public service record was much worse. By 2003, seven departments were yet to set targets, and of those that had, seven reported having made little or no progress towards their achievement. Therefore, six years following the adoption of EEO Policy to 2010, 35.0% of government departments reported having done little or nothing to improve the representation of women among their senior managers. Of course, other activities might have occurred that have not been fully documented. If so, this points to a need for better developed indicators concerning such areas as leadership, organisational culture, and recruitment and retention priorities.
How might we account for the limited progress that has been made with respect to recruiting and promoting women in the public service? A number of explanations might be suggested, including organisational conservatism, retrenchment, differential commitments to EEO among senior public servants, and perceptions that individual women might hold concerning the comparative merits of pursuing careers in the public service.
The Defence Force
The military has long been a bastion of masculinity, and around the world, women typically make up just a small proportion of people serving in the forces. It is only now becoming more acceptable for women to engage in combat roles in militaries. In New Zealand, women have served in various support roles in the defence force during wartime for most of the country’s history. However, opportunities for women to serve in the military in equivalent roles to men were not fully opened up until July 1977, and even then restrictions were placed on the combat roles women could perform in. Concern about the status of women in the forces led to the commissioning of a report by Clare Burton concerning gender integration in the forces. The resulting document, published in 1998, has served as a blueprint for major change (Burton 1998). All restrictions on the employment of women in combat roles were finally lifted in January 2000. At this time, it was directed that all New Zealand Defence Force communications be written in gender inclusive and non-discriminatory language.
As of 2002, women made up 19.0 percent of personnel in the Royal New Zealand Navy, 13.2% of Army personnel, and 15.6% of personnel in the Royal New Zealand Air Force. Overall, they made up 1,668 of the 10,546 non-commissioned and commissioned personnel in the defence force, comprising 15.8% of the total. In addition, women make up at least 40.0% of the civilian staff in each of the services and in the headquarters of the defence force. Generally, women are represented in greater numbers in the lower ranks of each of the services, and average salaries for women are considerably lower than those for men. However, the Defence Force has shown initiative in recent years in seeking to make military service more attractive, welcoming, and viable for women.[xv]
Various forms of harassment have been identified as a major problem in the Defence Force, and staff have been surveyed with the purpose of determining the extent of the problem. One such survey was conducted in 1995 and another in 2002. The most recent of these surveys revealed that 49.0% of female respondents reported having experienced unwelcome or offensive behaviour. However, the 2002 survey also suggested that there have been improvements in the Defence Force since 1995. In particular, most staff surveyed said they had received training to increase their awareness of harassment. Most survey respondents also said they believed their superiors were active in seeking to address harassment concerns.[xvi] The willingness of the Defence Force to recognise this problem, ask tough questions about it, and then seek to address it is to be commended, even if – at present – the problem remains significant.
Education and Training Enrolments and Attainment
The evidence presented so far suggests that there is a large amount of gender segregation both across and within workplaces in New Zealand. Although women can be found in many positions of power and responsibility, the overall picture is one of men continuing to hold the majority of top positions, and men across the whole economy typically receiving better wages and salaries than women. These observed gender differences can be viewed as the residue of practices and modes of thinking that were better suited to a time when women did not receive the same educational opportunities as men and when men themselves were paid at levels that could readily support a whole family. But the gendered practices and mentalities that remain with us present major hurdles that must be overcome. This is not a matter of political correctness, but of economic survival. A country where those who showed the highest levels of attainment in the education system were systematically under-represented in a large number of occupations could never remain economically competitive with one where educational attainment was a strong predictor of status on the labour force. The United States most closely approximates this standard, with the least gender-segregated labour market. But right now, New Zealand exhibits the hallmarks of a society where the best and the brightest are not getting ahead as they should.
Summary statistics from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority show that more girls put themselves forward as candidates for qualifications and that they are more likely to achieve those qualifications than boys. In 2002, of the boys seeking qualifications, 65.7% achieved them. Of the girls seeking qualifications, 71.6% achieved them.[xvii] Turning to the tertiary education sector, we find that, in 2001, women made up 56.4% of students enrolled at public tertiary institutions in New Zealand. At the university level, women made up 55.8% of students. At polytechnics, they comprised 52.8% of students. In the colleges of education, they comprised 78.5% of students, and at the whare wananga, they made up 72.9% of students.[xviii] See Figure 4.9. Turning to programme completion statistics, again, women show greater levels of attainment than men. In 2002, among those awarded post-graduate degrees in the universities, 54.3% were women. Women also were the majority of those attaining bachelor degrees in universities, representing 58.1% of graduands. The same pattern existed among those completing diplomas and certificates at polytechnics, with women comprising 62.1% of diploma recipients and 54.1% of those attaining certificates.[xix] See Figure 4.10.
The Education Labour Force
Women represent a clear majority of New Zealand’s education labour force. This has long been the case in primary schools, although it was not until the early 1990s that the number of women teachers exceeded the number of men teachers at the secondary school level. The education sector has become increasingly feminised, but this has not occurred in a uniform fashion. Within state primary and intermediate schools, in 2002, women made up 81.5% of all teaching and management staff. However, women made up just 39.7% of school principals. This pattern is repeated at the secondary school level. In 2002, women made up 56.3% of teaching and management staff, but only 27.1% of secondary school principals.[xx] Men employed in state primary and secondary schools represent a minority of the staff, but they are over-represented among school principals.[xxi] See Figure 4.11.
Keren Brooking (2003) provides a closely-observed analysis of the ways that sexism serves to limit opportunities for women to become school principals in New Zealand. “Women are applying and being short-listed for the principalship in roughly equal numbers to men… but the autonomy, power and ‘local logics’ employed by boards, is effectively gate keeping the masculined culture in place” (p.13). Based on Brooking’s evidence, it is clear that the current processes for selecting school principals are highly susceptible to manipulation by board members with sexist agendas. The result is that the best candidates for the jobs are often missing out to others who fit stereotypes of what it takes to be a school leader. That board members are often unreflective about their sexism and how it influences their hiring decisions is all the more cause for concern.
Some significant salary differences can also be observed between men and women teachers. Although women are more likely than men to engage in part-time teaching, salary differences can also be found among full-time staff with permanent appointments. In 2002, female primary school teachers earned an average of 87 cents for every dollar earned by male primary school teachers. In 1992, the difference was 84 cents for every dollar.[xxii] Clearly, this pay differential between full-time men and women teachers on permanent appointments in primary schools has been relatively stable over time. At the secondary school level, the difference between the average salaries of full-time men and women teachers on permanent appointments is smaller.
Figure 4.11: Men and Women in the Teaching Profession
Data Source: Ministry of Education Statistics on Teaching Staff, March, 2002.
In 2002, women teachers earned 95 cents for every dollar earned by men. This pay differential has been stable since the early 1990s. In sum, primary and secondary schools are staffed predominantly by women, however men in these sectors tend to receive higher pay and the position of principal in any school is far more likely to be held by a man than by a woman. This situation perpetuates gendered social hierarchies, sending messages to boys and girls about what constitutes a “natural” social order. Schools are not just workplaces. Schools are crucial social institutions where students develop self-awareness and form aspirations for their future employment choices. The processes that sustain this gendered hierarchy in schools – and, in turn, support gendered social hierarchies – deserve careful scrutiny.
At the tertiary education level, some significant differences in the gender composition of staff can be found across institutional type. In 2002, women constituted close to half of the teaching staff in polytechnics – making up 51.0% of lecturers and 47.1% of senior lecturers. Women were also well-represented among deans and heads of schools, making up 40.8% of people in those positions. However, women constituted only 30.0% of chief executives of polytechnics in 2002. Within the Colleges of Education, the presence of women is very strong at every level, except that of Chief Executive or Principal, where, in 2002, all positions were held by men.[xxiii]
Within New Zealand’s eight universities, in 2002, all the vice-chancellors were men. (A woman, Professor Judith Kinnear now serves as the vice-chancellor of Massey University.) Among the academic staff, in 2002 women held 39.2% of positions. The representation of women in these positions changes dramatically across academic ranks. While women constituted 56.1% of tutoring staff, 51.9% of lecturers, and 34.3% of senior lecturers, they made up only 15.1% of readers or associate professors, and just 12.2% of professors.[xxiv] See Figure 4.12. Over time, women have attained a greater presence among academic staff.
In 1990, women held 21.5% of teaching positions and 4.5% of the professorships in New Zealand’s universities.[xxv] Progression up the academic ranks tends to take many years in New Zealand, as elsewhere. It would be unusual for someone entering the system as a lecturer to attain the rank of professor in much less than around 12-15 years. Therefore, the approximately equal representation of women and men currently in lecturing positions could be seen as boding well for on-going improvements in the representation of women at more senior academic levels. However, these aggregate figures mask significant gender differences across academic disciplines.
The University of Auckland has done much to espouse its commitment to equal employment opportunities and equal educational opportunities. Yet that commitment is clearly patchy within the faculties. In 2002, women made up 50.0% of the academic staff in the Faculty of Arts, but only 35.0% of academic staff in the Faculty of Law and just 10% of academic staff in the Faculty of Engineering.[xxvi] In all cases, the student bodies in these faculties have much higher female representation than do the academic staffs. Viewed in terms of offering equal educational opportunities, the relatively low presence of women academic staff in the Faculty of Law and the Faculty of Engineering sends implicit messages to female students concerning how much they are valued in these professions. Of course, faculty-level figures mask the situation at the departmental level. When whole university faculties and departments exhibit high and sustained difference in the proportions of men and women among their academic staffs – particularly when these do not reflect student demographics – we must ask what it is about the local cultures and the procedures of recruitment and promotion that have generated these outcomes.[xxvii]
Other Professions
Looking across a range of professions, evidence can be found of discrimination against women in the workplace. The legal and medical professions in particular, have generally not engaged in rethinking career life spans and working hours in light of social changes, including the great increase in women lawyers and doctors. Indeed women are now the majority of those training to be lawyers and doctors in New Zealand. Many New Zealand workplaces have long-established practices that tend to privilege male employees simply because there was a time when these professions were almost exclusively male domains, and men had wives/partners at home to care for them and their children. These practices including expectations of long hours, and a sole focus on work/career tend to exclude women and almost anyone who takes child-rearing seriously, frequently today, young men as well as women.
The proportion of women in the medical profession was 32.6% in 2001. In 2000, 49.0% of medical graduates in active employment were women. As a result of changes to the gender makeup of the medical profession, in 2001 the mean age of women doctors was 39 years; significantly younger than that of men at 45 years. The mean hours per week worked for all active doctors were 48, for women the mean was 42 and men 50. The average hours for women doctors decrease to 39 in the 30-44 year range and increase to 41 from 45-60 years. This reduction in working hours reflects the effects of women’s unpaid childbearing and childrearing work on their paid employment. Such a change in the balance of paid and unpaid work need not be an EEO concern. However, discrimination against women is present when there is evidence that women are excluded from specialist training and professions and/or promotions because they cannot work unlimited hours due to their caring work. When we look at the overall picture of where women are located in the medical profession there does appear to be evidence of gender-based discrimination. There is also evidence of some progress for women in the medical profession.
Women are a higher proportion of house officers (48%) than in other medical positions. The proportion of women in general practice, registrar, primary care, and medical officer special scale roles is in the range 36-42 per cent. However, only 19% of medical specialists are women. Looking more closely at the various medical specialties, we find that 29% of obstetricians and gynaecologists are women. Of those training to be obstetricians and gynaecologists, 74% are women. (In 1980, just 10% of the trainees in these two specialities were women.) In paediatrics, 29% of specialists are women. Among those training to become paediatricians, 56% are women. (In 1980, women comprised 21% of those training to be paediatricians). More troubling figures emerge in the areas of general surgery and intensive care. At present, women comprise just 3% of general surgeons and 20% of those training for the role. Among intensive care doctors, just 8% are women, and of those training to be intensive care doctors, women comprise 33%.
Currently women are 44% of the doctors working towards vocational registration and 53% of those working towards registration in general practice (Medical Council 2003: 8). At a time when there are serious shortages of general practitioners due to less job security and lower remuneration, more women than men are in training to be general practitioners. There is no gender breakdown of the retention of New Zealand doctors, although the number of medical graduates leaving New Zealand for better working conditions and pay in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom has recently been increasing from year to year. This has resulted in some severe workplace shortages especially for general practitioners.
Unfortunately there has been little change to New Zealand medical specialities to accommodate doctors with family responsibilities. In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service has introduced changes to specialist professions to allow doctors to complete their training part-time (or in 40-hour weeks as opposed to 60-or 70- hour weeks) over a greater number of years. Such efforts to promote flexible working conditions in the medical profession are both helping to address medical workforce shortages and employment equity issues.
In 2001, women made up 37.0% of barristers and solicitors in New Zealand. In 1982 46% of law graduates were women but by 2001 women were 60.4% of law graduates. The total proportion of women principals rose from 9% in 1993 to 15% in 2001. Some firms, such as Meredith Connell, have instituted a policy of employing equal numbers of female and male law graduates. However, in 2002 women on average constituted just 12% of the total partners in New Zealand law firms of 10 or more partners. Twenty years is enough time for women to rise to the top of the legal profession, yet they have not risen in numbers proportionate to men. Meredith Connell has two women partners out of 16, Hesketh Henry has one out of 20, Russell McVeagh has two women partners out of 25 Auckland partners and Chapman Tripp in Auckland has three women out of 24 (MacLennan 2002). Considerably more women are judges (30.1%) – where appointments are publicly made – than private law partners in New Zealand.
A number of barriers to women’s advancement in the legal profession continue to exist. These barriers include the “male” environment of big law firms and women’s exclusion from old boys’ networks. For promotion to partner level, partners look for others who are like them “white, male, a certain age…” One partner, explaining why women are only a small minority of partners, is reported to have said that “the top echelons of NZ business are still dominated by men who feel comfortable dealing with male solicitors” (MacLennan 2002). Other factors that tend to exclude women from law partnership include the coinciding of women’s childbearing years with those of partnership consideration, the lack of transparency in selection processes, the marginalisation of mothers returning to work, and the lack of value attributed to the non-chargeable “relationship management” work women do in firms.
Discrimination Complaints
According to the Human Rights Act 1993, employers are prohibited from discriminating against people on a variety of grounds in job advertisements, the job application process, or on the job. Grounds for discrimination complaints against employers that are most pertinent to women include: Sexual harassment; discrimination on the basis of sex, including pregnancy; and discrimination on the basis of marital status or family status. People who believe they have been discriminated against by an employer, either at the pre-employment stage or while in employment, may make complaints to the Human Rights Commission. Those who are employed are also covered against discrimination by the Employment Relations Act 2000. Employees can choose to complain to either the Human Rights Commission or the Employment Relations Service, but not both.
Human Rights Commission figures offer some insights into the prevalence of discrimination on the grounds of interest to us. However, they do not allow us to determine the gender of the complainants. Therefore, it is possible that our calculations include complaints laid by men who felt they were discriminated against on the basis of marital status or family status or were subject to sexual harassment. To that extent, we are limited in the implications we might draw from the following information.
From July 1999 to June 2003 – a period of four years – the Human Rights Commission received a total of 1,187 employment and pre-employment complaints. Of these, 532, or 44.8%, were complaints consistent with forms of discrimination against women. Among the complaints, the majority, 272 – that is 51.1% – were on the grounds of sexual harassment. Another 150 – 28.2% – were for discrimination on the basis of sex. Among these, 43 were for discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. A further 110 complaints – 20.7% – related to discrimination on the basis of family status or marital status. In each of the years ending in June 2002 and June 2003, the number of complaints received was lower than for the previous year. Hopefully, this signals a positive trend, but interpretation of the figures requires caution, since it is also possible that lower numbers of complaints received is also being driven by the potential for people to take their complaints to the Employment Relations Service. (No analysis of the Employment Relations Service data was conducted because the Service’s method of data collection is currently less consistent than that used by the Human Rights Commission.)
Several observations based on this analysis are in order. First, a high proportion of complaints received by the Human Rights Commission refer to forms of discrimination against women. Second, for every complaint made to the Human Rights Commission, we can be sure that many instances of discrimination against women go unreported. It takes time and courage for an individual to lay a complaint against an employer. In many instances, potential complainants might calculate that it is easier for them to let the matter drop and move on. Third, there are likely to be many instances in the workplace where acts of sexual harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, or family status are subtle and based on the differential power of employers and employees. Take, for example, the case of a pregnant woman who knows she should ask for time off work to attend regular antenatal check-ups but who dares not ask her employer for such time off for fear of losing her job.[xxviii] No overt discriminatory action is observed. Yet, the whole structure of the workplace is discriminatory and it forces those at the sharp-end of that discrimination to trade off one set of needs against another, knowing that the power and pecuniary interests of the employer will dominate.
All of this suggests that women are often the targets of employment discrimination. Whenever such discrimination occurs, it sends messages to the complainants that they are not being taken seriously, or that they are not welcome in the workplace. Complaints received by the Human Rights Commission can be seen as offering more evidence that women are not experiencing equal employment opportunities in the New Zealand workplace.
Summary
Of the four EEO target groups, women have achieved the most progress in their relative position in the New Zealand labour force. Yet, this progress has been quite limited, and equality with men in participation rates, pay, and seniority across occupational classes is a far-off goal. Most women are still clustered in lower paid jobs, at the bottom of occupational hierarchies in the labour force. Moreover, where progress for women has been achieved in some industrial sectors, it has often not been because women have improved their employment positions but because men’s employment positions have worsened. It is troubling that there is so much evidence of direct discrimination against women and of sexual harassment of women at work. As a first priority these practices should be eradicated. But indirect forms of discrimination also continue to hold women back. For example, the structuring of the workplace, the intensive nature of some training programmes,