Women in Canterbury
The September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes in Canterbury had different labour market impacts on women and men. Overall, male employment increased and female employment decreased in the months following the earthquakes.
The divergence in the months following the earthquakes between men’s and women’s employment patterns can be explained by large falls in employment in female dominated industries (e.g. retail trade, accommodation and food services). In contrast, the largest increase in employment in the Canterbury region was in the construction industry in which seven of every eight people employed are men.
The Ministry’s focus is on ensuring actions that ensure women have the opportunity to fully participate in the recovery of Canterbury, to increase female employment in the region, and to reduce the likelihood of women from unwanted disengagement from the labour market. For more information read Building Back Better (2013): Utilising women's labour in the Canterbury recovery.
The Ministry currently monitors the female labour market in the Canterbury region on a quarterly basis. The table below provides labour market information for Canterbury for the periods prior to and following the earthquakes.
The Canterbury labour market over the year ending June 2013 is showing signs of recovery for women’s employment in a range of industries. This employment growth is not in the construction industry however, where male employment continues to rise.
The gap between male employment and female employment that widened after the February 2011 earthquake has held steady over the last quarter. The female working age population in Canterbury is also holding steady and is slightly ahead of the male working age population.
Source: Household Labour Force Survey. Note from June 2016 Statistics New Zealand ceases publishing this data in the Household Labour Force Survey. For any detailed employment data on the Canterbury region, please contact Statistics New Zealand directly.
Females Canterbury Region (not seasonally adjusted, annual comparisons are recommended)
| Quarter | Labour force participation (%) | Employment rate (%) | Unemployment rate (%) | Working age population (000) | Employed (000) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Mar | 66.3 | 63.8 | 3.7 | 240.7 | 153.6 |
| Dec | 65.7 | 63.0 | 4.2 | 243.1 | 153.2 | |
| Sep | 65.5 | 63.1 | 3.6 | 240.9 | 152.0 | |
| 2015 | Jun | 65.1 | 62.7 | 3.7 | 239.9 | 150.5 |
| Mar | 67.3 | 64.9 | 3.7 | 236.5 | 153.4 | |
| 2014 | Dec | 66.7 | 63.9 | 4.3 | 259.7 | 165.9 |
| Sept | 65.6 | 62.5 | 4.8 | 258.2 | 161.2 | |
| Jun | 64.8 | 62.8 | 3.0 | 257.3 | 161.7 | |
| Mar | 66.6 | 63.9 | 4.1 | 253.0 | 161.6 | |
| 2013 | Dec | 66.1 | 63.0 | 4.7 | 251.1 | 158.2 |
| Sept | 62.7 | 59.8 | 4.7 | 242.9 | 145.2 | |
| June | 64.0 | 60.6 | 5.2 | 242.6 | 147.1 | |
| Mar | 64.7 | 61.8 | 4.6 | 244.6 | 151.1 | |
| 2012 | Dec | 63.2 | 59.3 | 6.2 | 239.4 | 141.9 |
| Sep | 63.9 | 60.1 | 5.9 | 235.7 | 141.8 | |
| Jun | 61.9 | 56.8 | 8.3 | 241.3 | 137.0 | |
| Mar | 61.6 | 58.6 | 4.9 | 247.4 | 145.0 | |
| 2011 | Dec | 60.9 | 58.3 | 4.3 | 245.0 | 142.8 |
| Sep | 59.2 | 55.2 | 6.7 | 248.0 | 136.9 | |
| Jun | 62.3 | 57.9 | 7.1 | 263.8 | 152.8 | |
| Mar | 64.0 | 59.7 | 6.6 | 261.6 | 158.3 | |
| 2010 | Dec | 64.7 | 60.7 | 6.3 | 261.1 | 158.4 |
| Sep | 64.5 | 60.9 | 5.5 | 256.1 | 156.0 | |