Workshop on gender responsive governance

Speech notes to introduce workshop session “Gender responsive governance – the key to the population and development agenda”
Part of for the 4th Asia-Pacific Women Parliamentarians’ & Ministers’ Conference
Parliament Buildings, Wellington

I have been asked to introduce the workshop sessions that follow by talking a little about some of the strategies New Zealand has used to encourage women into governance and to ensure that women’s voices and needs are heard. All of the areas I will discuss are covered in more detail in the workshop sessions, so I will deal with them relatively briefly. These include some background on the way we use gender analysis in the government sector, an introduction to the Action Plan for New Zealand Women and how the state sector in New Zealand has managed to increase the number of women on boards and in other governance roles.

I will start with gender analysis, which, in the context of government, is a method of systematically examining how gender differences are affected by government action, and communicating that information to decision-makers.

The use of gender analysis in a consistent way in the state sector is relatively recent. Guidelines for undertaking gender analysis were originally developed by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in 1996. Training and support was also offered by the Ministry to enable other agencies to use this framework and the Ministry still supports this.

In 2002 the by then Labour-led government recognised the importance of gender analysis by requiring all Cabinet papers that deal with social policy to have a gender implications statement.

Effectively that means that all new social policy specifically has to consider the gender impacts of the proposed policy. I’m not suggesting that including a gender implications statement in Cabinet papers is a guarantee that the analysis will be there or that in itself the policy will be gender-neutral in its impacts; but it does mean that gender has to be considered, and if the analysis is absent or inadequate then questions can be raised.

By ensuring that gender analysis is undertaken we are trying to make sure that all government agencies think about gender when developing policy. To be effective gender analysis really needs to be embedded in the policy development process, not just considered as a box to tick at the end.

This means that departments have to invest resources, because good gender analysis depends, not only on practical guidelines, but also on having good reliable data about gender and strong analytical capability. The workshop session will go into this in more depth.

A second way New Zealand has tried to ensure gender issues are addressed consistently across government is through the Action Plan for New Zealand Women, which was introduced by this Labour-led government in 2004 and is the first time that any NZ government has committed itself to an integrated plan designed to improve women’s lives. It’s a realistic plan that sets:

• priorities;
• achievable goals;
• milestones; and
• ways to monitor our overall progress.

The plan identifies three key themes for women:

• economic independence
• work-life balance; and
• health and well-being.

I am not going to go into any detail as the workshop will cover these, but I think the key to its success is the whole-of-government approach. This means that the different elements of the programme are delivered by a wide range of government departments. The role of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is therefore to co-ordinate the Action Plan, to provide support and advice and to monitor implementation.

The third initiative I want to cover is the work of the Nominations Service of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in increasing the participation of women on state sector boards and committees.

In the Workshop you will be given details of the 2006 New Zealand Census of Women’s Participation prepared by the Human Rights Commission and the New Zealand Centre for Women and Leadership. I actually cited some figures from it in my earlier address without referencing it.

The census showed that women continue to be under-represented in leadership roles in most sectors, and that in particular they make up only 7 percent of directors of the Top 100 companies on the New Zealand stock exchange (NZX).

In contrast, women constitute about 35 percent of Crown companies and 41 percent of the members of government boards and committees. Those boards and committees include businesses owned by the government, and a wide range of other governance and advisory boards. While 41 percent is still not equal membership it’s significantly better than 7 percent and it is a figure that is steadily improving.

So what makes the state sector different in this regard? Well the first thing is that the government has set itself a target, which is 50 percent participation of women on state sector boards and committees by 2010. This doesn’t mean quotas, or 50 percent on every board. In fact it isn't an end in itself – it is a means to an end. Its existence enables us to benchmark performance and it incentivises the search for appropriate nominees.

The second thing government has done is to recognise that everybody – male and female – tend to go to their own networks first when looking for leaders and that if women are not part of those networks, they will not be appointed. They are not even on the radar. What we believe we need to do is set up effective mechanisms to find women with suitable skills and background and then put those women forward to the wide range of agencies that make the appointments.

Those women still have to compete with all the other candidates, based on what they bring to the position, but at least they are on the radar – and because there really are women out there with the skills to serve on boards, many of them will be appointed.

That’s essentially what the Nominations Service does. It maintains a database of suitable women, built up over many years and constantly updated, and it also works with appointing agencies to understand their needs. It then uses its database to find women who have the attributes needed for the job, and puts them forward. The key is only nominating strong candidates – if the Service cannot find women with the skills needed, then it doesn’t nominate.

My other portfolios are Commerce and Small Business, so I am very interested in the performance of our private sector and in the contribution women make to the economy. Since becoming Minister I have been asking whether there is any role for government in helping private businesses tap into those same skills that the Nominations Service taps into for government. On board appointments, we have found a model that works for government, but that does not necessarily mean the same model would work in the private sector where there is diverse ownership and a greater diversity of interests. We will be working closer with the business sector to find what works for them and offering to partner them in any way we can.

Finally, is this about tokenism? No. My point about the lack of women's participation at these senior and governance levels is a waste of women’s talent that no economy can afford. Emerging trends in international research indicate a positive correlation between diversity in board membership and strong company performance. That is because having a wide range of perspectives brought to the board table broadens the ability of a board to identify risks and opportunities. The more narrow the range of perspectives, the greater the risk a board will not anticipate potential risks and opportunities. The same is true of the senior management team. Diversity at both governance and management levels is positive for company performance – put plainly diversity is good for business.

So thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts on this and I hope you enjoy the workshops.