Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 2:47:12 to 3:35:33
Discussion covers gender-neutral language, the Sex Discrimination Act, and WGEA's data on the gender pay gap and leadership.
Topics: Workplace relations, Human rights
Speakers: Christine Castley, Senator The Hon Katy Gallagher, Senator Malcolm Roberts, Senator The Hon Jane Hume, Senator Maria Kovacic, Interjection, Senator Karen Grogan, Speaker 15, Speaker 16, Speaker 17
>> We've recently seen the men's labor government in New South Wales walk back language used in parliamentary breastfeeding policy that used genderneutral terms like lactating parent. Premier Min said the use of that language was strange and not what the public expects. Minister, do you agree with your state counterpart that biological difference between people who are born male and people who are born female must be referenced in law?
>> Must be referenced in what?
>> Law.
>> Um, look, I I mean, I think some of these issues were traversed uh last night, which is the appropriate committee for that to happen. Um, the approach I bring to the role I play as Minister for Women is one of respect. I just try to be respectful to all individuals regardless of, you know, how they identify. And I think some of the debates that people try to draw into are difficult, divisive, and harmful. Um, and so I prefer to have a more inclusive way of operating. Um, that language uh doesn't bother me.
Look, I also try and be respectful, >> but um I have a mother, I have a sister, I have a wife, I've got two daughters, I got a granddaughter, >> and they expect me to ask questions like
this.
>> And I don't think it's being disrespectful to anybody. It doesn't mean I >> just because I like apples doesn't mean I hate oranges.
>> Senator Whitten, um I I might want to take a breath. the the minister said
>> I wasn't making any I wasn't I wasn't casting any espersion on you um
>> you were talking about having respectful
conversation so I'm just making sure that you understand >> I was talking about how I you asked me about what I thought I was just explaining how I choose to engage on this I think it is for many uh people it's a very it can be a very difficult and traumatic discussion and I just try to bring a sense of um you treating everybody as they wish to be treated.
>> We should be able to have the discussion respectfully.
>> Yeah, I agree and I think we are right
>> Good. So, Premier Min's comments stand in stark contrast to the Gillard era changes that remain in law which repealed the statutory definitions of men and women and has been used in recent months to ensure that biological men can access female only spaces. Does the federal government agree with the New South W Labor government's assessment that the public expects that male and female take on its ordinary use
>> Well, again, that's not really a question for me as Minister for Women. That's a question for the attorney. Um, and that was dealt with um and they appeared last night as I understand it. irrelevant officials.
>> Is the men's labor government in breach of the sex discrimination act by not being inclusive of other genders or lactating men in its policies?
>> Well, that's again not a matter for the
>> How are we going with an office for men?
>> Um, well, we we've had the appointment of uh the member for the Hunter. Um, is that the right seat? Um, Mr. Rick Collie from the other place who has been the first appointment in a federal government with a specific policy focus on men. Uh, and he's doing an amazing
>> And how are we going for an office for
men? Well, the government has recognized the specific policy area that in this instance, men's health that we want to uh work on specifically in relation to men and that is the first time this has happened. I think it is proving that it is needed and the work that Dan uh is doing uh supported and working very closely I would say uh with the um Jed Carney who's doing uh who's working in the women's policy space is needed but there has not been a decision to have a specific office for men.
Yeah, I think I think the men's problems and men's issues are are growing by the day and uh they'd be worthy of an office for men because it would actually make women's lives better if we had better men. So, >> I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Chair. Um last Monday, um Four Corners um had a program called the Pregnancy Penalty. um exposing allegations of pregnancy discrimination across Australian workplaces, including the public sector. Uh are you familiar with that program? >> Thank you. Um has the officewoman briefed the minister on these allegations or has the minister requested any advice from you more broadly about those allegations?
We would definitely have talked about issues around this and I also talk about issues with the uh APSC the public service commission in relation to our responsibilities
>> Um there was an example of both the private sector and public service in that show. Um and the example from the public service was from the department of home affairs and um this woman in particular was denied flexible um work arrangements um when she returned from maternity leave. Have have you reviewed this particular matter or consulted um with the department of home affairs since um the program aired in relation to that?
Uh so this is a matter of that that specific I'm not here to compend on individual um employment matters. Um they are appropriately dealt with by the minister for home affairs in that case. um my job and it's it's more as um I guess it crosses over Minister for Women and Minister for the Public Service is making sure that um our employment arrangements which don't allow for discrimination now are followed and enforced. I mean it's very clear uh that no woman should face discrimination because she's pregnant, taking parental leave or having caring responsibilities. Um I know and I've had it raised both in the anecdotally about examples which are difficult to uh grab hold of in a sense and I think in the public and private sector where you just don't get the promotion or there's a restructure. I mean there are stories like that that I hear. Uh and so for me and we're currently in bargaining with um you know our employees at the moment uh is doing what we can to make sure that as much as possible we are implementing policies which very clearly set the standard around that.
>> Sure. And I guess what I'm trying to understand here is the scale of of the issue and and I note um you know the specific responsibilities in in relation to particular cases. So what I'm trying to get an understanding of whether you've consulted with the department of home affairs since the program aired obviously given your overlap um with your ministerial portfolios as well and the work that the office of women does.
>> I haven't specifically spoken to the minister for home affairs about it. But I mean I must I you know I I I leave well it it's the responsibility of those individual ministers if they've got a complaint or are dealing with a particular issue that they know about. I don't know if that case was u made aware the minister was made aware or if a complaint was lodged. I have been dealing more with what can we do to make sure some of you know those harder to grab around your hands around issues that we are looking to minimize opportunity for that. So one thing I'm interested in is why women find it hard to move up the EL ladder. Uh is it I always get it wrong EL1 more than an EL2 >> or the other way EL2 is more than an EL1. is higher than I always get I always think cuz you're number [laughter] one that you're at the top and I have to flip it. M >> so I have been spoken to about how the opportunities to move from say an EL1 to an EL2 are difficult uh particularly when you have caring responsibilities um and part of that's around a perception that there are there isn't as many part-time opportunities at that level that you have to be full-time and that impacts so they're the kind of things I'm trying to grapple with about our own employment arrangements and if there are women out there who have been discriminated against based on pregnancy, returning to work or caring responsibilities or men for that matter because we are encouraging more men and more men are taking up those caring opportunities then I hope that they are finding a way to come forward and let that be known so that we can pursue it because in my experience it's it's the issues are harder to grab hold of like you don't >> not get the opport promotion because you've uh got a a baby or you're going to have a baby. it's just it's for another reason and that's but the individual feels that it's because of uh the pregnancy or
>> Yeah. Well, this is even worse than the promotion. It's the fact that you don't even have your right to work from home um you know at whatever rate that you had before when you returned from Matt leave. So, it's it's a much much more basic issue than a promotion. And I guess what I'm trying to understand is you know whether you have perhaps been engaged with the Australian Public Service Commission or other public or other departments about the broader issues raised by the program about pregnancy discrimination and how many cases there are actually like this across the Australian public service and and whether any work's been done on that or whether you're seeking work >> um to be done on it by the Office of
Women. Well, the APSC um will which will appear next, I'm sure we'll be able to go into this in a bit more detail. I mean, we have looked at, you know, part of what we've been trying to do around uh flexible work arrangements and uh paid parental leave and all of the issues that are currently on the bargaining table. The unions are and other employee representatives are seeking greater flexibility at work. They're all kind of areas that we are actively engaged with at the moment. Um, I have not I can't recall an an individual I may well I I'm careful about what I say, but I haven't received complaints around pregnancy discrimination that I can recall post that show. Um, and if I and I'll check with my office about prior to that show.
>> Sure. Have you sought data from across the public service to understand the
>> No, I haven't specifically requested data. Um, I would norm you know I I guess my job and I'm not sure we can ask the public service commission later. I'm not sure how that would be documented and collated across government to you know about the nature of complaints that are being made. I mean the area that I've been trying to focus on is to make sure that we have employment rel well we have employment law um that sets the standard and then the policy decisions we take which support flexibility for people with caring responsibilities and those who have recently had children.
>> Sure. And I guess because they're fairly serious allegations that were aired on that on that program and I'm trying to get an understanding of whether those policies and whether you're aware are consistently applied across those agencies and and if they aren't if that's being reviewed or whether there is a review in fact to ensure that policies are consistently applied to not discriminate against women who are coming back from parental leave.
Um yes they are they were it were serious um allegations that were raised and they will be followed up through you know the work that we are already have underway.
Um and then just one um last follow-up question to that. Does in relation to the data, does the office for women have access to data on how often flexible working requests are refused across the APS agencies, particularly for women returning from parental leave or would you be aware of who would collect that type of data?
>> I suspect you're better off asking the public service commission >> on that. Um
>> but you don't have any access to that
type of data. No, but we have worked with the sex discrimination commissioner on her report that she um talked about last night as well.
>> Senator, I think it would be either the the APSC at sort of an aggregate can give an aggregate sense but also individual kind of corporate areas in in each department might have more um granular data on these issues.
>> Okay. And and just sort of one last bit to that, um I think it was in 2025 the um APS employee census found that about 8.4% of respondents experienced discrimination and I think it was like 17.1% cited caring responsibilities. Have have you done any work in relation to that or examined those findings to understand the prevalence of of pregnancy discrimination across the APS or just haven't drilled down to that at this point?
>> No. And I think you you're probably better off asking the public service
>> Okay. Thank you. I do have a block on a different set of questions if you wish to rotate. Chair.
>> Thank you very much, Senator Kassic. We'll go to Senator Roberts.
>> Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing again. Uh first is workplace gender equality. I've got a set of questions for them. Your corporate plan has a series of quantifiable economic KPIs. Your your scorecard I guess these include total remuneration pay gap, corporate velocity which is the rate at which companies take up a gender equality agenda and third leadership metric which is the number of women or the percentage of women in leadership roles. Are these the main KPIs?
Sorry. Uh, Senator Roberts, could you
>> The corporate uh plan for the workplace gender equality agency has a series of quantifiable economic KPIs. These are a scorecard I believe. First one is total remuneration pay gap between men and women. Corporate, second one is corporate philosophy, the rate at which companies take up a gender equality agenda. And third is leadership metric which is the number of women or percentage of women in leadership roles. Are these the main KPIs?
>> So Senator Christine Castley the CEO of the workplace gender equality agency if I could just clarify the question uh because we have the corporate plan which sets kind of the the principles on which our organization operates. So that is to deliver regulatory excellence um to turn worldleading data into action to accelerate employer action to lead the national conversation and to um aspire to excellence through our ways of working. Uh and we then have the scorecard which we put out each year the national scorecard. Um I suppose in the first instances I'm kind of would like to clarify um in terms of your question whether that relates to the scorecard or the corporate plan. >> Scorecard. the scorecard. Yeah. And so um I suppose the scorecard is basically um as you would know based on a national picture of data which collects from employers um and that we then report on a set of metrics which I would describe as basically a picture of what is happening on gender equality in workplaces rather than a set of KPIs and what we do is to track that data over a period of years. We produce that data each year. It draws from um data which employers report to us and we then use that analysis to provide um that information back to um um those employers but also to the nation generally to understand what is happening in gender equality in the workplace and where there are areas to target for action to ensure that we um achieve gender equality in the
workplace. So then you don't have KPIs
>> Well, the scorecard is essentially about trying to identify where we're at in terms of workplace gender equality. Uh we set a target in terms of what we think um is a right level which is a plus or minus 5% either way. Um so there needs to be a range because we recognize that it's um going to be very very difficult to achieve a 0%. So that in a sense would be a a KPI if you like that we are working towards in achieving workplace gender equality.
>> So how do you assess your well let's ask the the total remuneration pay gap has fallen from 28.6% to 21.1% since 2013. Are you claiming that reduction has been that reduction has been a been as a result of the actions of your agency in
that is the result of the actions for our agency because action is the responsibility of employers. What we're trying to do is to support and assist the effort by providing data to employers by providing that national picture of what is happening in individual workplaces and then how that then extrapolates also to what's happening across industries and occupations. And then nationally we can understand what is going on with people's representation in the workplace. uh what roles they're in, what opportunities they have for promotion, opportunities to access flexible work which impacts on decisions around their participation in the workforce. So by contributing that providing that databased information and putting that out um publicly and prevent presenting a national picture we think we are supporting and assisting employers to understand where they can focus their efforts um within their workplaces to actually take action to improve um workplace gender equality. As you say there has been um a reduction in the gend workplace gender equality um gender pay gap over time. So um certainly we would see ourselves as doing what we can to contribute to that effort that employers are putting in to um address gender equality in their workplaces by providing them with data and evidence that will assist them in that role in it.
>> So you've used the word support and assist quite a few times. >> Why what what are you doing that a statistics agency like ABS couldn't do?
So our data um is actual um based on actual record employee workforce employer workforce records data that we collect from employers. Uh so it is workforce data um and it's across a large sample. It then distills insights into across industries occupations. So employers can have a look at what's happening across the industries and occupations and but it also then targets down into a level of detail. I think that's not generally available for example to the ABS around things such as um employment arrangements and the part-time full-time flexible piece what's happening in terms of recruitment what's happening in terms of promotions resignations um and also what's happening in terms of parental leave so there's a I suppose a set of data which relates to the actual workplace um which is available to employers to have a look at in terms of what's happening across not just their organization but across industries and sectors and then what's happening nationally so they can look at patterns which can then also then inform some thinking [laughter] around how to take action to address workplace gender equality.
>> So thank you for the answer. I still can't understand how that data collection couldn't be done by a data collection agency like ABS. >> What are you adding to to support and
>> So the form of reporting that we do is specifically focused on workplace gender equality. So it then provides that level of nuance and detail. I think that is not generally available in other kind of broader data sets. Um it is um around workforce data which employers collect. What we do is then kind of collect that data up to then provide a national data set which allows us employers and others who are doing work in this space to understand what's happening in terms of of patterns around kind of um movements and and what is happening in a workplace where there maybe are areas to target um to then address the causes of um inequalities that might be happening in the workplace.
>> From your Thank you. From your scorecard, every industry pays men more on average than women. What is the pay rate you're comparing? Is it hourly or weekly? Base or base plus overtime and allowance?
remuneration that um yeah, that we we're having a look at
>> full-time remuneration, not including overtime, including allowances.
>> It does include overtime, total remuneration,
>> total pay, gross pay. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. Looking at mining for example, does it compare does your comparison compare the salary of an office worker in a mining company airond conditioned office in Perth with the labor in the heat of the Pilbra? What adjustment have you made to compare apples with apples in this comparison?
>> So what we do is to collect that data and identify the occupation that the the the person is. It's deidentified data but we certainly see the individual employed in a particular role within the organization which also then is um the data that's reported for that which may be an office job and then the data of the remuneration of an individual on site on a mining site. So it's simply it it allows you to distill that data and understand what's happening and then what we look at at that is in a global sense within that organization what is the representation within those roles and in who has access to which The data we collect is about telling the story of what is going on in a workforce so that an employer can then understand what is happening in terms of patterns of employment and retention and those sorts of things. So um it helps them understand whether there is a um over representation of women in one role one one part of their business as opposed to another and to understand the causes behind that and whether there are things that can be done to enable greater flexibility of movement across the organization if that's appropriate. That's for the employer to use the data that we provide to them based on the patterns that they they see from the data they report to us about what's happening across the industry but within
jump in? WA just had its 40th birthday annuality agency just had its 40th anniversary. Uh and uh going back through the history of that organization and uh its establishment and beyond has been a partnership with business like business have been there when it started it was businesses that put their hand up and said we want to be part of this and that's how it's grown over time. So a and even at the panel that we had business was represented there talking about the benefits that come. I think the issue that we're all kind of thinking about is how do we make it easier for business to provide that data? How do we you know um timeliness, efficiency, um making sure it's not ownorous. All of those things are legitimate, you know, um I think policy discussions that we are having now and also how they use the data to improve their own um organization with the support of Wuia
>> and Senator Roberts, we will look to rotate the call if you'd like to finish up your line of questioning.
>> Okay. Um corporate, thank you. Corporate velocity, where was that when you first started measuring it and where is that
Um if I could seek some clarification senator by what you mean by corporate philosophy.
>> Well that's that's your agency term I think the rate at which companies take up a gender equality agenda the gender equality agenda.
>> So that is not a metric that we ask um agencies to employers organizations to
report on. Have you have you made comments about it >> or your agency Corporate philosophy.
>> I personally have have not um >> and um I I can certainly go back and check this but um certainly not as far as I'm aware, but I'm happy to take that on notice check if the agency has made any comment on corporate philosophy.
>> Thank you. We'll continue later.
>> Thank you, Senator Roberts. We'll go to Senator Hume.
>> Thanks, Chair. I just want to follow up on some of those questions specifically around which is um submission to the productivity commission inquiry into business reporting. Was stated that uh they you consistently engage with employers to identify areas of complexity consider how it can be made clearer and easier to navigate without compromising data integrity. What does that what does the engagement with businesses look like?
>> Yeah, so that happens on a number of different levels. So, um, Senator, as you would be aware, um, agencies report to us every year. So, that reporting period starts 1 April, um, and then there's a closing period as once the reporting is closing, we actually do a survey, um, of reporting agencies every year. Um, and we do get a very good response in terms of the experience and we use that.
>> So, what's a very good response percentage- wise?
>> Uh, I'll have to take that on notice, but my memory this year was in terms of the response was something between 80 and 90%. Um so but I please don't hold me to that. I just like to check that it was a high rate of response. >> Um so certainly we use that feedback um to then inform us looking at the reporting system. So that would be technical issues the actual reporting system um as and also in terms of just things like numbers of reporting hours um and um what we look to do is to then improve that experience. So certainly what we've put in place um this year is try to improve what we call our case management approach which is the response to assisting people who are reporting when they contact us um to um see what we can do to ensure that they only do a report once that you don't submit a report for example and you have to go through iterations of correcting it and correcting technical glitches which kind of support and provide information and guidance. We regularly report um we regularly review the guidance that we provide to employers. So that's in in terms of the mechanics and the the I suppose the technical support in reporting. Um I should say we're very cognizant of the design of the reporting system which is very much geared towards um using data which employers already have systems in place to report on. So certainly that's a piece that's in there. And then finally, I suppose at a at a broader level, um certainly since coming into the role, I have made a deliberate effort to go out there and speak to employers from a range of sectors, industries, range of different sizes um to actually get a sense of um where that um I suppose what their thoughts are on the regulatory impact and to ensure that we can actually identify um opportunities to make the experience as seamless as possible. So very very committed to doing that and continuing to do that and continuing to engage both at kind of the peak body level across different sectors as well as speaking to a good sample of um employers who report to us.
>> Okay. I wanted to follow up on one of the the issue that you raised there uh particularly around single touch payroll data and using that. So obviously the 2021 review uh recommended exploring the use of the data that's already provided to government using particularly single touch payroll was was um was highlighted as well as other digital solutions to extract that information from employers systems existing systems. The government committed to implementing the review's recommendation in August 2022. So I want to understand what work has undertaken to implement that specific
recommendation. So, so at this stage, um the single touch payroll and other ways of trying to find um tap into kind of existing data sets that we could use is something that's I would describe as an ongoing conversation. >> There are some real challenges here because um the workforce data that employers provide to us is deidentified data. So, we can manage that in the sense that um that minimizes your privacy confidential confidentiality issues. I'm flagging this as one of those issues that we need to think about in terms of accessing for example payroll data um to kind of make sure that those confidentiality and kind of privacy obligations are are met. Uh so that's one issue that we have to work through but there's also other issues about um the mechanical issues around having um systems speak to each other but also how we can whether in fact the data that would become available from STP single touch payroll data um will actually ensure we can have a consistent data set that we're getting the same information to because the benefit of our system I think is that longitudinal piece that we're collecting data over a number of years um and I think where we also um ensure I suppose we minimize the regulatory burden for employers is to ensure that we're continuing to not shift and change the reporting system too much because organizations within themselves have reporting systems in place which have been many of them have had that now in place for for more than 10 years and any shift and change we're very conscious of can sometimes impose a um a burden in terms of having to shift and change something that's become automated. I suppose what I'm trying to say here is there's a range of things that we we're actively looking at the issue but to be worked through and we want to be careful to make sure we get it right not to en not just to ensure that we can continue to do with function but also to make sure that we're not compromising um individuals privacy confidentiality all those issues to make sure that we're also thinking through the consequent pieces. Um so certainly it's an ongoing piece. It's taking us a while because we want to make sure we get it right and it's not a simple piece either.
>> Yeah. Okay. I I'm acutely conscious that there are lots of uh submissions to that inquiry from you know people like the BCA and Master Builders suggesting that there could be some productivity gains for them uh making greater use of existing >> employers data. um and that this should be part of the tell us once approach which I know that the government is committed to the coalition committed to it in opposition as well. >> Um is this part of that tell us once
plan I should ask? Um yes uh essentially looking at non-financial reporting as well like it's part of a bigger piece of work which I know it's underway but definitely we would like to make things easier and for data to be more useful to everybody across the board. I think WA has done a great job um and they have you know I get a lot of feedback about a lot of reporting I don't get too much about WA like in terms of people it's engagement and that's because I think of all of the work has put in over the years in having those good partnerships with um businesses that they cover.
>> Okay. So the use of single touch payroll data is something that the government then supports WIA exploring further.
Well, I think we're looking I haven't seen the work come back about the best way to ensure the most efficient and effective reporting from business into government and for government to systems to support that. So have an open mind about how we achieve that.
>> Okay. Is it a something that WIA has looked at sort of on a fieldby field basis? What could be reused from single touch payroll reporting in what it is that
>> is part of the process that um that we we're looking at in terms of the broader bit about and in fact that would be an important part of making sure that we're actually getting that that congruence and that consistency. Um, and I suppose you you'd appreciate when systems are set up separately, they don't necessarily always kind of align. And that's part of the issue about trying to work through what will do versus what won't work. Um, but certainly it is about we are very open to look at um, you know, minimizing the reporting burden for employers um, and and actively engaged in that process. We see that as an important part of of our responsibility um, to minimize that regulatory impact. Um, so we're we're very open to being engaged in that process, but as you'll appreciate, um, single touch payroll data is sits with the ATO and it's it's their data set. Um, and certainly it comes down to what is, um, what's made available to us, but we're very open to as part of our continuous improvement process to looking at all options going forward.
>> So, I mean, I'm conscious of the fact that this was a recommendation in August 2022. kind of four years ago now and that you're you know open to it that is terrific but I suppose it's it it seems to be taking a long time to progress and the fact that it's yes it is ATO's data certainly but conversations must have been had about sharing that data and accessing that data in the last four years
>> um well I can't so my sense from having come into the role in the last five months is certainly that it is an active ongoing conversation um that we're being engaged in so
>> okay so what's the timetable from here on in to try and minimize duplication of reporting to try and have that sort of tell us once mentality and and to you know >> reduce the regulatory burden on
business. >> Yeah. I think it's probably a question for finance later on in the day because they've got regulatory reform responsibilities that um W would be feeding into but he's not the decision maker.
>> No. and not the only one as well because I think there's a number of regulatory agencies that are involved in this process and >> and again I would imagine it would be about where you would have um best impact in terms of where regulatory burdens are in terms of how you would prioritize which agencies you would share information with.
so do you have a work plan then and a timetable for further reducing duplication and improving efficiency and is that something that you can share? I
would describe um the work that we do as ongoing rather than a single project. Um so it it kind of fits within our cycle each year. What we do is each reporting cycle before we go live. we look at what's come out of the previous year and with those survey results for example that I I spoke out to and and also based on kind of conversations that um our reporting team in in speaking to employers kind of the information that they've gathered to then look at how we improve the process for the following year. So I would see it as an ongoing continuous business process rather than a single project that we would have a project plan around. So more as an ongoing process piece. So what's
improved in the last 12 months?
>> Um we've managed to retain data and the only reason I'm hesitating is I know we do have numbers so I might take that on notice but for example between the previous year and this year for example the number of hours that employers reported to us has significantly reduced. Um they've also um we've also got kind of um some metrics on kind of um the numbers of errors which cause the return. I talked to that that turn back process. Um so certainly we do have some of those numbers which um I'm happy to share with you if I can take that on notice but it will show you a sense about certainly there has been even between last year and this year a significant reduction for example in the number of reporting hours. Again if I can be a bit vague something around the 40ome hours versus 25 something hours in reporting hours. And that's a I think a material impact in terms of reporting. It's a
>> it's a mix. do that on the you do that on like a I mean obviously not every business would have 40 hours. So do you do it you scale that for size of business or number of employees or
>> Yep. Yep. Um I don't know if we I'll have to check to see whether we have that kind of scale of of what you know what responses we've had um across the how how do we collect that data because we collect it as a higher level. I mean there's significant work. We've got you know close to 10,000 kind of entities reporting to us. So that's a big set to have a look at. Um, but what we're looking at is on average, are we are we seeing a consistent improvement in the experience? You know, I like to call it almost like the client experience, um, the user experience. Um, and that's certainly certainly our goal in terms of what we're looking at. If you think about um who reports to us the scale which can be quite significant in terms of looking at it while you might get some very very large organizations they will also have the resources to have better systems in place and therefore the impact is minimal versus um you know others which are um smaller and potentially have fewer resources. Um but again the design of the system says that it's really only businesses with 100 or more employees who report to us. So it kind of um manages I suppose the regulatory impact in that sense. >> Um so so we we're we're conscious at all times about trying to think about how can we manage that reporting experience in the best way we possibly can. Um and also um conscious about how through the insights and the analysis and the work that we do and and putting the data out, publishing the data as well um we're returning value for for the impact of reporting to us. That's certainly very much an underpinning driver for how we do our work.
>> I I'd be very interested on notice, obviously wouldn't have this with you now, in getting a sense of the hours it takes to report to a GI. Um, but I can >> Yes. But perhaps no. Um, for you know, businesses of maybe three different sizes of the, you know, the ones that you assess. So, you know, over a certain number of employees. I don't I don't mind how it is that you measure. ities and what is you call large businesses, medium businesses or relatively small businesses even if they have got more than 100 employees but it would be interesting to know whether that hours that it takes to report to RIA has reduced in a consistent way across business sizes.
>> I'm happy to take that on just to see what we can do with the information that we have. So absolutely.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thanks J. Thank you
chair. Can I just jump in? I just following up from Senator Kassic's uh questions. I just wanted to correct the record that the Office for Women's ASL is 53.4. Um, so I lowballed it and my apologies to the Office for Women for that. And in relation to the questions about pregnancy discrimination, um, I have I did receive uh some correspondence from an individual prior to the ABC show which I have responded to. uh that individual did not want me uh to share that information with the uh department slash agency. Um but it the information feeds into the work we're doing and looking at through the current you know employment arrangements. So that's the way uh we have responded there and we have had some correspondence since the ABC show. Um but um none of that was about the APS and so that all correspondence has been referred to Minister Rishworth for handling.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um Senator Roberts,
>> thank you chair. Uh continuing on even in high this is a quote from your report. Even in highly feminized industries like healthcare and social assistance where women make up 78% of the total workforce, men are disproportionately fasttracked into leadership holding 49% of the CEO and head of business roles.
Yes. We do see that in feminized industries that where there are men um they there is more of them in the senior
roles. So you've got 51% in senior roles being women and 49% being men. Let's call it 50/50. Mission accomplished.
>> Well, but not compared to the size of the overall workforce.
>> Oh, so the target is not 50/50.
>> So it's it's feminized industries in relation to that comment. It sounds like I don't have the the annual report with me, but it it's making a comment about even in the industries where women dominate as a percentage of the workforce, we don't see that replicated at senior management. So there's where there's 79% of the workforce, they are not 79% of the management. It's just a statement of fact. Uh no other view about that.
>> Okay. So the report also talks about the pedestal effect. Men are fasttracked into leadership more quickly than women on on in general supposedly. Have you done any research on the pedestal
>> Uh yes, Senator. So I I assume you're referring to the joint report that we released um a couple of weeks ago with um the Bank West Curtain Economic Center, Curtain University. So that um report actually um was where I think that issue was raised around the male pedestal effect having an impact on u what happens particularly in female dominated industries. it um basically joined up a set of data um from not just our data but also um ASX data that they hold and also Hilda which I can never remember what the acronym stands for >> the household and income labor yeah um data to actually understand um what is going on and it's simply saying the male pedestal effect again is a comment um on saying that even in female industries there seems to be bias that uplifts people as much as um potentially bias in some other areas which might um basically constrain people's progression. It simply highlights this as an issue to be looked at um and um we provide data that tells that story and it's then um for others to kind of um look at that story to see what is happening in workplaces. The point here being in female dominated industries as the minister has already said um even where you have um equal participation or probably greater female participation there is something happening at the management levels and that's I suppose factor of the work that we're looking at to kind of say let's have a look at what is happening in the patterns of remuneration and employment and retention in an organization to say where does there seem to be um things that give rise to questions to ask about what's happening So that then employees and organizations in industries can then um have a look at that to see if there's things that can can be done for them to then uh basically put in place arrangements for the best possible workforce participation arrangements that we can have for Australia.
>> Thank you. Um do you look at the root causes the reasons for this claimed pedestal effect? For example, is it physical? Is it behavioral? Is it family constraints? I would >> because I I believe women and men should have equal opportunity, but they're not equal. I mean, if if I were to to line up against Maria Kovik as a candidate to be in a basketball team, she'd win. >> No doubt. >> So, are you looking at the reasons rather than just saying there's a pedestal effect giving a name to something and just saying there it is?
So, so what we do senator is we um the data that employers report to us um give us um information on pay on who's in which roles um the employment arrangements whether they're part-time or flexible in other flexible arrangements recruitment promotions so what's happening in terms of movements and then put that data [music] out there for employers to look like look look at and I think that is a key benefit what we do that employ that information is made available back to employers and publicly and also information across industries which helps them to understand the patterns of what's going on and to then understand try to kind of try to understand the causes. So we leave it to employers because employers are best placed to make decisions about the operational arrangements for their businesses um to take that action. So um in terms of um I suppose we don't make any judgment we simply collect the data and we put it out there and allow it to
tell the story. pedestal would tend to be judgmental surely.
>> Well, those were words that um came out in the BCE report um which um is an academically researched phenomenon which um they have certainly done work on and which they put in that report. It was a joint report um and it was an and this is what we try to do is to provide our data and use that data to then work in partnership with a whole range of other um organizations um peak bodies as well as research entities like BCEC to actually develop some insights and some thinking. So our input into that report was to provide the data. Their input because they have the research capability and the analysis cap capability was to overlay that data with with commentary and um a description I suppose of what is happening in the workplace.
>> Okay. Thank you. Women and leadership roles. Your your research suggests apparently a lack of flexibility in childare parenting. Child care or parenting is a major restriction on women in senior management. Yet the ABS show shows the number of women currently aged over 40 who will not have children is 22%. Up from 11% 20 years ago. Have you tested your theory by surveying how many women in these roles are childless and how many women self-report having been passed over who had children which would prove your hypothesis? How much empirical evidence is behind this? So
no, we don't collect that data uh because it doesn't align with our functions and and the objective of the act. Our role um is um basically to collect workforce data which shows us the movements and the patterns within those work forces and to then provide that national data set which is then tiered at a number of different levels um to understand um to can have a look at what the patterns are and which B and others such as employers can then understand the root causes of those patterns and what's happening.
>> Thank you. Can we move on to the office of office for women?