Today, Minister of Women’s Affairs, Jo Goodhew, announced the Government will only seek to appoint 45% women on state sector boards by 2014.
The target set by Labour was to appoint 50% women by 2012.
This Government clearly lacks ambition for taking the lead in increasing women’s leadership in New Zealand, even though it is one of three priorities they have for women.
Even worse is the low expectation they have set that private company boards should only aim to get to 10% women on boards.
Today, the Grant Thornton survey found that NZ has also gone backwards in the number of women in senior management roles – dropping from 32% in 2011 to 28% in 2012.
But what else can you expect when we have a Government that doesnt lead by example.
Happy International Women’s Day!
Hi Sue, so you came up with a target, that’s all good, but did you actually deliver on it? And if not, why not?
Announcing targets is pretty useless if you’re not going to do anything to achieve them. Remember the getting NZ into the top half of the OECD by 2010? That was a nice target too, but what did you do to achieve it?
Yes we did. We had reached 41% by 2008 and were well on track to get the target by 2012. However, since National took office, it has stayed stuck on 41%. No ambition.
Did Ms Goodhue give any reasons for cutting back the targets?
I can’t see how encouraging the appointments of talented women to boards and senior management positions has any bearing on desired fiscal restraints. It looks more to me like they are still steeped in bigotry and prejudice against leadership roles for women – other than for themselves of course. Like Paula Bennett, it is the ‘climb the ladder then throw it away so no-one can follow you’ attitude that is so characteristic of this puerile government.
Yes Sue that’s true, but to be fair Dianne Yates made up 1% of that 41% through the four boards she was appointed to, and I don’t think appointing her to four boards after she lost a council seat showed a lot of ambition either.
It shouldn’t be difficult to achieve 45% by 2014. I look forward to it being achieved by that date. Government only has to increase it by 4%. If it’s true that they haven’t increased it by even 1% in 3.5 years they will have to speed up.
I would have hoped that Board Members would be appointed on Merit.
If a male has higher capability, then why should he be discriminated against because there must be an certain number of females?
Why not focus on empowering woman through capability building – instead of discriminating against men?
Ho, ho, ho. Was waiting for the discriminating against men clap-trap. No-one’s discriminating against them. But if a woman has the best qualifications and experience for a senior position she should get that position – not sidelined because of her gender which is still frequently the case. Is that too complicated for you K1W1?
Ho, ho, ho. Was waiting for the discriminating against men clap-trap. No-one’s discriminating against them. But if a woman has the best qualifications and talent for a senior position she should get that position – not sidelined because of her gender which is still frequently the case. Is that too complicated for you K1W1?
Anne, get off your bike.
I agree with “if a woman has the best qualifications and talent for a senior position she should get that position”
And if a woman is “sidelined because of her gender which is still frequently the case” there are issues to address.
However, lets say in 10 years the capability of women on average means that there ought to be a 80:20 split in favour of women on Boards, the 50/50 policy would not allow for this.
Quotas are a short term fix-it. Just like the increase min-wage to $15 are a short-term fix.
You would discrimnate against men if you have to elect a female to a Board to fill the quota, even if there was a better candidtate, be it a man, dog or alien.
However, lets say in 10 years the capability of women on average means that there ought to be a 80:20 split in favour of women on Boards, the 50/50 policy would not allow for this.
Spurious argument and you know it is. On what grounds do you base your 80:20 split in less than 1o years? How do you know such am eventuality is even remotely likely to happen.
You’re trolling.
Attn. moderators.
What’s the point in having a deletion request (posted comment twice) when it never seems to work.
12 members of Labour’s 34 member caucus are woman. That’s 35%, far less than 50%. The percentage is worse if you consider the front bench where only 25% are women.
Of course board members should be appointed on merit. At the moment it appears that they are appointed on gender, unless you subscribe to the view that women are significantly less capable than men, despite the fact that we have a higher rate of graduation with tertiary qualifications than men. Even the NZ Institue of Directors says there is no lack of talented women lining up for board appointments, they just aren’t getting selected for appointment. The shoulder-tapping regime leads to board chairs selecting people who think like they do and move in the same circles as them. This leads to a lack of diversity in thinking and lack of critical analysis of decisions. Diversity in boards leads to better decisions and for that reason, I wouldn’t want 80% women on boards either.
“I would have hoped that Board Members would be appointed on Merit.”
So would I but unfortunately they don’t so they get given a target and will not find it hard to find women of merit to fill that percentage without detriment to their boards because the women are around just not being appointed. It really is that simple.
I can put some peoples minds at ease, having this target wont diminish the quality of people on boards it will increase the diversity. The reverse however is true without this.
Quotas or targets usually follow decades of education and persuasion. When the later two fail the former is utilised to assist implementation to persuade/reassure the naysayers that the sky will not fall with the appointment of more from a particular group.
I can recall the naysayers preaching doom and armagedon if we went nuclear free, the sky and economy did not collapse.