- Please sit tight and wait for those early next week. Today's session is on indicator one, gender composition of all levels of the workforce, and indicator to gender composition of governing body. And it's really nice to be with you all today. We do thank you for your patience for the delay in last week's session. As many of you will be aware, there's been quite substantial storms across the state of Victoria, many of you are probably still living with the aftermath of those. I'm in the Oranges, and we were without power for over a week. And Jen had storm damage to a house which meant there was no internet, the wires fell through the roof. So we do thank you for your patience, we acknowledge that for entities it's a stressful time of year, leading up to the analysis of your data and we just appreciate your patience basically, we know it's been a tough week for everyone. You know the drill, if you've been to any of our other sessions, so we are on the commission's panel and provider, Jen and I represent GenderWorks Australia. We principle partners. We are not employees of the commission for gender equality, but we are on the panel of providers and are contracted by the commission to deliver these sessions, as well as the previous audit sessions that you would have participated in or have been invited to participate in. We do have around 80 participants in the space today. So it's a big group, but there are lots of opportunities for you to ask questions. In terms of content, there will be some content delivery today, but please make use of the chat function. We love to see those questions popping through. We will answer absolutely everything that we can, as you know, if you've been in our sessions, there will be some things we'll have to take on notice to take back to the commission, but we are making a note of all questions in every session that we running. Also just noting safety and support options as well, whenever talking about gender equality, we do like to note that this can raise issues for anyone at any time, at any level within an organisation. And we encourage you to contact your EAP provider should it raise any issues, and also 1-800-Respect and safe steps, both 24 hour hotlines that are available to support people around family violence as well. So please use those if you need to. We'd like to also just raise that the session focus is on analysing the data. So looking at the numbers that will be produced through the indicative reporting template, it's not about completing the template and it's not about troubleshooting or manipulating the data either. It is about the kinds of questions that you might ask yourself when you look at the data to inform your consultation process and subsequently your equality action plan. But we've got up to an hour and a half together today, and we're looking forward to our time, hoping to see those questions come through the chat function, but also hoping to hear them verbally. We've allowed some really solid time throughout this session for you to ask those questions in the broader group, so just make a note of them if you prefer to ask them verbally as well. We just wanted to contextualise where we at in terms of the process of your gender audit. So the first phase you can see there is July, so for all your data post June 30, you'll be populating your reporting template. The commission is aware of any challenges that might be existing in the indicative reporting template, as they're working with entities and they are troubleshooting those at the moment. As you go through the process, if you do have challenges, please contact them directly to raise those issues with them. And what we are hoping to do today, particularly around indicator one and two, but throughout the six sessions that GenderWorks will be running. We support you to start considering the analysis component of your completed data set. And this will lead you into what you're probably busy planning for the moment which is your consultation phase, which for most entities will be around August to September. Developing strategies and measures, which will be your writing phase around October, November. And as you will have seen the extension of the deadline to December 1, for submission of your gender equality action plans. So we are moving through the process and we just happened to be sitting in the analysis space today. Thanks Jen. So without further ado, let's move into indicator one, which is gender composition of all levels of the workforce. We know when we do our gender audit, that we will be looking at two data sets that we need to take into consideration. So one is your workforce data, which has the indicative reporting template, which I'm sure you're all familiar with now. You've probably had a bit of a play with it, you've probably had a bit of a think about what you can capture from your systems, what data will be missing. And just as a reminder, we do know that data sets won't be complete in 2021, that we will be doing the best job that we can together as much information and as much robust information as we can and where they started gaps exist, we'll be planning for subsequent data collection periods. So in terms of gender composition of all levels of the workforce, we have table 1.1 in your indicative reporting template, which is gender composition at each classification by gender. And you also have sheet 1a, which is your intersection or gender analysis components as well. Looking again, across gender composition at each classification level and employment type. There is also the secondary data source that you need to consider, which is your employee experience data. So for many of you that will come through the people meta survey, which has been administered by the VPSC, for others, you will have administered an employee experience survey, using the questions that are provided by the commission on their website. Currently, there are no questions mapped for indicator one, but I do encourage you to check back to see if updates are made on the website mapping some of those questions to indicator one, particularly possibly around identity and intersectional factors in particular. Thanks, Jen. So when you go to your indicative reporting template and I'll show you a screenshot of it just shortly, you will see there are three components to reflect on. So as of June 30th, 2021, you will fill out the template for every single employee in the single unit upload component and it will fill out and self populate indicator one. You'll be looking at your data by these three measures. So classification by recording level, which will be zero for your most senior person in your organisation, which will be your CEO and moving downwards throughout the organisation, depending on your organisational structure and distance to the CEO. For those organisations who have an enterprise agreement, we do note that your structure will look slightly different here as well. So that will be negative one, negative two, negative three. Most importantly, you'll also be looking at your data through a gender lens. So woman, men, and self-described gender and also employment basis, which will be full-time, part-time casual and then permanent and contract against full-time and part-time as well. Next slide, thanks Jen. Jen, do we have a poll here? So just before we get into looking at the table and thinking about the analysis, if you can just answer how's your organisation mapping classification levels for the workplace gender equality audit. We know most of you all have put some thought into this already, you might have tested it, you might be doing purely by reporting levels to the CEO, you might be doing purely based on your enterprise agreement, or you might be doing a hybrid of both or across your occupational group as well. And if you don't know, that's completely fine too. I think that's pretty good, Jen. Thank you. So as you can see, there is a strong majority that looking at by reporting levels to the CEO. I'm looking at 43% of you. So just under half. Some of you are doing by enterprise agreement. some are doing your occupational group. And that's okay that some of you haven't decided yet, you do have the next couple of weeks to make that decision and do that mapping. But I would suggest the sooner the better at this point in time. Great. I do know some are doing a hybrid, so one of the things to really think about, particularly for those organisations that do have enterprise agreements, is to really consider how that data will be most useful to you as an organisation. So for example, how you consider your levels to CEO in terms of pay equity and analyse that data as well. So some organisations are now doing all their leadership levels as zero, negative one, negative two, negative three, and then shifting into a banding arrangement where they have an enterprise agreement. But it is an organisational decision and how you intend to use the data and how it makes most sense to you is the way that we recommend that you do that. Thanks, Jen. Maybe you can all close your data as well. And next slide, thanks Jen. So when we're analysing our workforce data, it is important to keep a couple of key principles in mind. So first and foremost, you'll be analysing your data through a gender lens. Obviously this is done that contributes to the Gender Equality Act. And so what is most important is to look for differences in workforce experience with women, men, and people of self-identified gender. You'll also be able to desegregate by intersectional identities where you have the data available. And just noting that privacy protocols will be built into the indicative reporting template. So the data that you'll be able to use will be based on those, and we're not exactly clear what those privacy protocols will entail at this particular point. With your analysis, we really recommend taking bite-sized pieces and taking a deep breath and not, I guess, coming at it from a lens where you feel like you already know what those results are going to tell you. So this is really the data stage. And what we're looking for is differences in the experiences between people based on the agenda. So the first thing we'd be looking at would be the aggregate results or percentages, that would be displayed in your table. So for example, the total number of people who are part time, who are women at a negative two level. So how does that differ for women, men, and gender diverse people? And what differences do we see for differences between gender and employment types? Thanks, Jen. Then keep going, thanks Jen. That's a very slide. So specifically in this data, what might be some of the questions that you'll be looking for? And we're really taking a key questions approach here. So for example, you'll be wanting to, sorry, I'm just got a little slide issue going on in the background. You'll be wanting to think about how the classification and composition plays out at different levels within your organisation. So for example, compare your overall workforce gender composition with the composition at each classification levels. You might also wanna start thinking about looking at your data and the way it changes over time between each of those composition levels. So for example, if you're looking at a negative one, which will be your most senior level of leadership sitting under the CEO, what is the percentage of women and men within that grouping? Then when you look at negative two, are we seeing a shift between those different levels? You might also be wanting to look at comparing the percentage of women, men, and gender diverse people at each career stage. So what is the difference when you come out of the senior levels and leadership levels at maybe your negative five and your negative six levels within the organisation, are we seeing any particular level where people of a particular agenda appear to be stuck? We'd also want to compare the percentage of women, men, and gender diverse people at the graduate level. We often see a fairly equitable intake, and it's interesting to then reflect on how people progress through the organisation. Next slide, thanks Jen. So this one, we're not clear yet how exactly the reporting framework will work on the commission's website, if it will be able to produce graphs, and if it will be available post December 1, as well for use, we do recommend that you create your own graphs and tables based on the information in your indicative reporting template. So this is just a sample or an example of what it might look like. This isn't a real organisation, but it is based on some of the trends that we've seen as we've supported different organisations to undertake this work. So in this particular example, we have a woman who is a CEO, so you've got a hundred percent sitting at your zero level, negative one is your most senior level of leadership and we have around 38% represented for women and around 62% of men, so more men at the most senior level of leadership sitting below the CEO. And then as you can see, as you move through the levels downwards, an increase in women's representation. So we're sitting at just over 40% at negative two and 48% at negative three. So getting closer to equity as we move towards the lower levels of leadership. A few points to note here is a female CEO doesn't necessarily mean that it's a gender equitable organisation, it just simply means at this point in time, there happens to be a woman in a leadership role. We do know that women in leadership are absolutely critical to organisations to building gender equitable cultures and to promoting gender equality more broadly. But each individual woman brings their own experience and understanding of leadership in those roles as well. We do often see this decrease, you may have heard the term the glass ceiling, so we often sit at the very most junior levels of leadership or those closest to employees, with the most number of operational staff, a high percentage of women in leadership, and we do see this tend to reduce in many organisations as you move up the leadership levels. I would also be thinking about this data in terms of the composition of my organisation as a whole, for example, if this was a female dominated organisation, we say 60 to 70% of all employees identifying as women, then I'd be questioning the difference, particularly at a negative one and negative two level of women's representation in leadership and why this isn't translating into leadership at the most senior levels. If this was a male dominated workforce, then in reverse, I'd be considering why a negative three is female dominated, but the workforce is heavily male dominated. So if we're sitting at say 60 to 70% of our workforce being men more generally, you may want when you go into consultation phase to think about what are the barriers to improving gender equity at the lower levels of the organisation as well. Thanks Jen. The next component to look at is the mode of employment or the contract arrangements for somebody. And in particular, we'll be looking at part-time workers within your organisation, full-time workers and casual. So you may wanna look at the gender differences between those staff who are of a particular agenda and working full-time and those who are working part-time. And if we start to see gender differences there, then we need look at that data a little bit more closely in the consultation phase to understand what's driving that differences and what's sitting underneath that at a gender issue as well? Are we seeing when we look at our negative three, particularly around our lower levels of leadership, higher numbers of women working part-time is a trend that we'll often notice. And as we move up, we see that decrease quite rapidly with often zero to none at the negative one level. How do we say men's flexible work arrangements or contracting arrangements play out at this level as well? And does it compare to women in the access that women and men both have? We'd also like to think about casual workers and where we see those most heavily dominated within the organisation, it's likely you'll probably see those most heavily dominated towards the lower ends of your structure. And are we seeing particular agendas dominate your casual workforces? And also when we do see that casualized workforce, are we seeing those reinforced in gender stereotyped roles? You'll be exploring that a little bit more in your gender segregated work areas, but I do think it's important to start thinking about those differences here. And that's probably enough, thanks Jen. Here's the same organisation, looking a little bit differently. So these are just some of the tables that we have developed just to demonstrate what your data might look like. So in the first instance, you'd look at the data comprehensively to see the full number of women and men in each of those levels, and gender diverse people. And then we'd start to understand how it looks differently for those people who are in part-time or full-time employment as well. So in this particular example, blue represents women, so a hundred percent of women at the zero level, a hundred percent of employees at the zero level, which is the CEO is a woman and this person works full time, by the dark blue you can see that. When you come to, and we'll flip to the other end, your negative three level, there's a very small percentage of men who are in the green and that light green at the top there represents part-time employment and the bold strong green represents full-time employment. So in this particular example, there's probably one or two men at this particular level that are part-time. And this is where you may see some staff differences in your data. At the negative three level women in the bold blue, there's more full-time workers than there are part-time workers, but there are quite a substantial number within this organisation. So not quite half, but still a decent representation. And then as we move into the negative two, we see that part-time roles for women and women taking up those opportunities decrease. And as we go to negative one, which is the most senior level of leadership under the CEO, they disappear entirely. Now this may or may not reflect your organisation, but it is a fairly common experience in organisations. And there will be some important questions to ask when you go through your consultation phase, do people at the negative one level feel like flexible work is an option? Do they feel like it's an option at negative two? If they do take up these flexible work options, what kind of repercussions do they feel exists for them within the organisation? And who is sitting at a particular level because they require part-time and flexible work based on their family and caring responsibilities. So while these are questions you might be able to just answer from the data right now, there'll be things that you can flag for your consultation to gain a greater understanding from your employees across the organisation. Thanks, Jen. So your tables get sort of a little bit more complex looking as we move into shape 1a, which will have a series of tables, one for each intersectional identity factor. So you will be looking at gender composition at each classification level by employment basis. So full-time part-time or casual and across the identity factors of Aboriginality, age, disability, ethnicity, and race, religion, and sexual orientation as of June 30th, 2021. Just noting that you'll probably have the most data around the age components and that there will be data missing, substantial quantities of data missing. And this is what you'll be looking at to make some improvements for your next round of data collection. This will self populate based on the indicative reporting template. And again, the privacy protocols that the commission puts in place may mean that you have nothing in some of these tables because it can't be reported on. And that in itself becomes the data that is useful for you when it comes to the consultation phase. So sometimes it's about what's missing and who's missing that really drives that consultation. So if we're looking at our senior levels of the organisation, and we've got three or four senior levels, three or four levels of leadership, and we're not seeing any diversity beyond gender diversity within those spaces, then that's a conversation that you need to have as an organisation as well through your consultation. Thanks, Jen. Okay, so what have we got here. We'll be looking again to compare the percentage of women, men, and gender diverse employees across each of those indicators, where we might see some differences, might be around ages at career stages. So questions to ask yourself might be, are there barriers or are we seeing senior women in the organisation aged over 55 or aged under 30? So if we're not sort of seeing any younger or older people within those cohorts, is there some age discrimination or is there barriers for people of a particular age within your organisation? You can also look at your leadership data through a gender and Aboriginality lens or gender and disability lens as well. And again, often it's that gap in information that's telling you the story at this particular point and whether that is a cultural gap of, yes, we do have people of diverse identities at all levels within our organisation, but we don't have the safety to report that, or we don't have the systems to report that, it could be any of those factors, or there could be barriers for people with different identities as well, that need to be removed over a period of time too. So it's only once you've got that data, which may be a zero, that you can start to actually unpack that through your consultation phase as well. Thanks, Jen. So as I said, it doesn't give you all the information, it doesn't explain to you the why, it just gives you the data, it doesn't tell you the impact on individual employees of their experience within your organisation, and it doesn't give you the interventions that you need to put into your gender equality action plan. What it does do is give you the baseline information to start those conversations and start progressing towards them. So for example, when we look at part time workers, we don't know from this study yet how women and men are treated differently when they do work part-time, are they still offered career progression opportunities? Do they feel valued? Do they feel supported? Men, for example, questioned for wanting to go into a part-time capacity, there's all sorts of different questions. Are they tapped on the shoulder, for example. With the casual workforce, and we haven't really talked about that too much. What are the impacts of people on that casualized workforce, what are their chances for career progression within the organisation? It is likely there'll be a level within the organisation whereby your casual workforce decreases and so thinking about the power that casual workers have within your organisation as well, could be quite interesting. How does being casual impact on someone's job security on their ability to secure long-term housing? What impact does it have on someone's mental health and anxiety as well? And we know that insecure work can impact on superannuation and longterm poverty and homelessness as well. And what happens when we look at that through a gender lens as well? So if we're looking at workforces and in some cases we know casual workforces will be 70, 80% female dominated, what are those long-term impacts for those people as well? Next slide, thanks Jen. Oh, you already have, sorry. No, back to your questions. Sorry everyone, I've just confused, Jen thoroughly. I'm actually gonna open it up for questions, I can say Jen has been answering many as we go. And I didn't pause to hear those. Is there any-
- It's okay, we'll just say, oh sorry, Kathy.
- No, go.
- I was just going to say, I know that depending on the device you're using and how you work with the visual presentation that you might not have been able to read the chat, but we will share the questions and answers when we share the materials from the session, we'll also share a document with the questions and answers, just so you have those there, if you've been unable to keep up with the chat. The other thing I just wanted to note, there's been a few different questions and I just really wanted to note the ongoing challenges with that classification mapping that quite a few people have been dealing with. And I really do apologise that we're not able to provide further information in terms of when further guidance will come from the commission with the classification mapping and recognise those challenges. There on the question of when that will come, as far as we understand, it's coming by the end of the month, the updated indicative reporting template and potentially further guidance on classification mapping. But we can't give any further information than that really, other than what Kathy's already mentioned, that verbally go with what makes the most sense to you in terms of classification mapping, and really make sure you're making your decisions based on what helps you with your pay equity analysis. So in that pay equity, you'll be analysing within classification groupings. So just keep that in mind, what will make that most meaningful in terms of looking in new classification groupings. And I don't, informally speaking I guess, more just as a discussion point, I don't imagine given the awareness of timeframes that if you've already been working on your classification mapping, that any new guidance will direct you that you must do it differently this year, it really is a test year and the commission's working to understand people's challenges. But further than that, there's not really much else we can offer unfortunately. Megan, did you wanna, I've just seen you raised your hand, did you want to jump in?
- Yeah. I thought it would be nice if you could see my face as I'm waiting on the chat line.
- It is lovely, thank you.
- I wondered what your thoughts were, with the levels to CEO, obviously that's the clear guidance that's been given and at this point in time, there's no formal indication written to do anything different, yet we know there's lots of conversations with the commission going on, regardless of what kind of entity you are, healthcare, local government, education or whatever. But if we did focus on level to CEO just as a starting point, do you or anybody else on this Zoom feel that it would be appropriate to do it that way, but acknowledge that there is obvious anomalies, for example, an EA to the CEO is not gonna be minus one. So a manual manipulation of this data to make it more sensible is probably the approach we're looking at. So do we levels to CEO and then look at the data and go, "Quite honestly, this person or this group of people "need to be moved down, even though they do come directly "under the CEO in terms of reporting lines. "But common sense says "that they are actually at this level." That's kind of the approach we're taking. And I am very hesitant to keep doing this analysis with that mindset that the commissioner will come in and say, "No, no, you have to do it this way." And obviously the results that were shown just now, there is a variety of options being chosen. So yeah, I really don't want the commission to come in and tell me to do it differently. That's probably what I'm trying to say.
- Absolutely well noted. And thank you also for coming off video to share that feedback with us. I will just on the, you said you'd mentioned maybe other entities in the room wanted to share their responses to what you'd said, that approach you're taking, that you're doing reporting level to CEO, and then some manual manipulation. Is there anyone else who wanted to, we've got a bit of time, if others want to come off mute and share? I can see there's some things coming up in the chat, I'll just take a look at that and leave the space for anyone else to jump off mute.
- Hi, I'm Lisa Davis was from Bendigo Health. At this stage, I've just taken it literally. And obviously the data whilst interesting, I know is not gonna give us that real comparison. So I'm just waiting to get advice, knowing at the end of this month, I'll do a data dump and then July will be spent, hopefully we'll have clearer direction on that, and then I'll just spend a lot of time in July doing that data. But I was loath to sort of do a lot now, knowing that health quite complicated, do I do EA or do I do classification to CEO? I don't know. But I have literally done a data dump and taken it literally. So yes, our EAs are minus one and we've got consultants at minus five and so.
- Thanks Lisa.
- Maybe wait and see.
- Does anyone else wanna share what they're doing?
- Yeah, I'm happy to share mine. I'm Brent, hello, I'm from the Kingston City Council. I know that a lot of councils have been talking to each other about this because it's a little bit tricky for all of us, but what we have done is use all the information that we have available to create, I guess, an adjusted level to CEO, So it's predominantly levelled to CEO, but we're taking into consideration all the information that we have to make the most accurate pictures. So for us, that level to CEO, as well as the banding information. And then also looking at our job titles, 'cause they're all quite structured and then also our organisational structure. And we've made a few blanket rules, for example, if you're this bend or below and you don't have reports or you do have reports, et cetera, then we just make a blanket to say that you're a negative five or a negative four. So we have had to make a few blanket rules where there will some errors and it's not entirely accurate, but we feel that it's more accurate than if we just do straight level to CEO but I also acknowledge that it's easy for us to do that and not necessarily for health and other areas where there's a lot more intricacies, but it's nicer in council, one of us have been speaking to each other and trying to find a consistent approach so that we can benchmark a little bit better. But yeah, I agree with Megan, they're making a bit of a manual adjustments and manipulation is probably gonna be the best way forward while we still wait for advice, and then of course we'll take that advices as gospel once we get it.
- Great, thanks, Brent. And I think we are seeing in the low governance spacing evolving over the last week or two in particular, in regards to those kinds of almost hybrid models. I think because when people just looked at levels to CEO, they were looking at 80% of their staff on a negative five, and then that just didn't really make sense of any use of that analysis. So it sounds like as a sensible way forward of looking at those leadership levels and then the enterprise agreement combined with your org structure, but yes, that manual manipulation, we're also seeing a lot of entities do that around executive assistant support to the CEO or to directors. And I guess just being careful with that manipulation, which I'm sure people is in terms of if there is a level that isn't at a leadership level, maybe they're a team leader, for example, but they're missing some leadership levels in between, that maybe that does reflect level to CEO because that becomes then the conversation about why they've got those reporting accountabilities and that job responsibilities, yet actually at our salary band-aids that are much lower. I'm not sure if I'm making sense with that particular example, but sometimes we over-correct things I guess, to put them in their salary level rather than where they should be sitting in their reporting structure too. Thanks, Brent. Anyone else got anything they'd like to share on this particular? We've got still quite a bit of time for questions and comments and sharing. Is there anything? Megan, did you have another one? No. Is there anything more about part-time, full-time, casualized workforces, ongoing contract, any questions? Anything about the analysis or anyone who's done a test run of their data and they're seeing some things come out of it already that they hadn't expected?
- [Fiona] Kathy, it's Fiona Savedra here from DEWLP, how are you going?
- Hi Fiona, thanks.
- [Fiona] I'm sorry, my camera's not working, I've got bad internet, but I was just going to say, I think looking at the employment type, it's interesting that there's no, I guess no analysis of the fixed term versus ongoing and that's something that I think I am really interested in looking at, particularly by gender, but also at different levels, 'cause what I sense is that there's particularly in the BPS, that there's quite a high number of fixed-term contracts, people on fixed-term contracts, as opposed to in the sort of areas in the executive roles that they're probably more tend to be ongoing and I'm quite interested. So the casualized workforce is a consideration, particularly in parts of our organisation in forest fire management and so on, but I think the fixed term ongoing particularly in corporate services and some other roles will be quite an interesting analysis for us to do as well.
- Thanks Fiona, that's a great pickup and I agree, and it'll be really interesting to look at those gender differences and we don't necessarily know yet what they will be. And I think in some sectors where those positions are grant funded, potentially we may see a high number of women in those roles, particularly where they're related to caring kinds of contracts and grant funding as well. But I think maybe in your fire services, you might see it a different way that plays out in terms of gender as well. Does anyone else have any comments they'd like to make in regards to those contract arrangements that they are already seeing or that they think they might see in their workforce? Nothing else anyone wants to share? We'll leave a last sort of breath open for any other questions or comments or thoughts at all. No. All right. If you do think of something, you'll have more space at the end. Please ask any and all questions, we really encourage it, it's actually the easiest way for us to or for me anyway to talk about this information is when we're thinking about real data and what kind of questions we might use to analyse that and to take forward into the consultation phase. Appreciate the comments so far. All right, thanks Jen. Next we'll be moving into indicator number two, gender composition of governing body. Again, you'll be needing to reflect on what data sets that you have available. And as you're all very familiar, as we can tell, you have your indicative reporting template, which will include tables 2.1 and sheet 2a. And cheat 2.1 is specific related to the gender analysis or the gender composition of your governing body, and sheet 2a again refers the intersectional factors related to gender composition of governing body. Again, employee experience data or the people matters survey, people using those terms interchangeably. So that's why you'll hear me use both of them at times. Currently, there are no questions matched with the governing body and your governing body is not required to complete your people matter survey or your employee experience survey. Moving into the next one, so why is this measure included? Many of you will be well and truly across the why, there's been a lot of conversation in corporate Australia around the need for senior leadership at the board level in particular, but there is a definitely a strong business case for gender diversity and a good source of information when you are developing your business cases, as I'm sure you're all aware is a workplace gender equality agency, which is where these data and this information has been sourced from. So the most recent data from the WGA indicates that there is a positive impact on organisations that have gender diversity at the most senior levels, including the 6.3% reduction in the pay gap for managers, which is a good news story, because we've just seen that the gender pay gap remains pervasive at a leadership level in particular, but right across all levels of employment. There is a business case that there is greater productivity when diversity is present and overall improved business performance. While the public sector is not designed to make money, we are still looking for greater productivity and better business outcomes for those we serve in our communities as well. And those business principles apply in that sector as well. Women currently only make up 14.6% of board chairs across Australia, so it is an area of interesting concern. We do know that in the Victorian public sector, there are a high proportion of women and there's been many initiatives moving towards greater representation of women on governing bodies and also we're seeing improved representation at the chair level as well. But ultimately, when we look at the principles that underpin the act, we have a moral obligation to ensure gender diversity at the highest level of our organisations, we will ensure that the needs of women, men, and gender diverse community members are better identified and able to self represent and with really, it's a good thing to do, it's the right thing to do. Thanks, Jen. We'll pop a quick poll up. We know that for most organisations you haven't traditionally, although some of the BPS have, collected information on your governing body. So we'll pop this poll up, Jen.
- See I'm just having a glitch, one moment.
- No, that's okay. Poor Jen, her internet hasn't quite been re-established, completely it falling through her roof. Power cords.
- Don't Jinx me. Sorry Jen. We've had quite the week, haven't we?
- I might not be able to run it, I'm sorry, are you able to just throw that as a question to the group?
- No, that's okay, we can talk about it when we come to the question time, the question that we did have prepared for you is just wanting to understand who had already thought about a process for capturing this information and just a little bit curious about what that process was? So we can definitely come back and capture that at the end. You're still not on mute, Jen. This will be what the indicative reporting template we'll look at, whereas gender composition at all levels is a percentage, with governing body duly are very low numbers, for all entities, it is an actual head count. So we've just filled it in as just a sample so that you can say what it might look like. And in this case, we have a man who's the chair and three women who are regular members and five men who are regular members. So we're looking at 33% representation of women and nobody who has publicly identified as self-identified gender. Thanks, Jen. So what will we be looking for within this? And there's the answer to that question around the intersectionality, I've just seen that pop up, is yes, you will be looking at these through an intersectional lens too, and I'll just speak about that in a moment. Some questions you might wanna ask yourself when you're analysing this information, is comparing the percentage gender composition of your board or your governing body with the gender composition of your organisation. And if there are significant differences, having some good robust conversations about why that is. So for example, if you're in a female dominated sector with 70% women represented across the organisation, yet you have a governing body that has 33% women, as the example I just showed, there will be questions that you'll be wanting to ask as well. You will also want to consider the impacts of under representation of a particular agenda, and again, the gaps in this data as well. And you might wanna benchmark yourself against the rest of your sector in terms of where other organisations are sitting within your sector, not to say that unless we've got equity across different genders, that we've met our targets yet, just because we're leading our pack of our particular types of entities, but it is good to know where you sit in relation to other organisations as well. Next slide, thanks Jen. Again, you'll be looking at your intersectional tables and we're not really sure how the privacy measures will share this information, it's very unlikely that you'll have high levels of data in any of the intersectional groupings, whether that be Aboriginality, age, disability, cultural identity, or religion, or sexual orientation, probably the one way you will have the most data potentially is around the age of your governing body. But again, you need to think really carefully about how you'll be capturing this information to protect the privacy of those individuals on your governing body, who in your organisation will administer the collection of that data? How will you communicate to your governing body? What the purpose is? Especially as we're not quite sure yet of the privacy protocols that are here. And also, how will you be using that information in future as well? Thanks Jen. Do you know where you're going, Jen? So again, you'll be looking to compare the number of women, men, and gender diverse governing body members across each of the intersectional indicators for difference in representation. And you may want to consider gaps compared to your population data as well. So does your board or your governing body represent community representation of people from different cohorts and if not, why not? And they're general questions that you should be asking across each of your indicators as you analyse this information, because we do often see in organisations, particularly at the most senior levels, real gaps between population and community data versus diverse representation at a leadership and organisational level. Thanks, Jen. And we're gonna just open the floor up again for conversations and discussion. Is there anyone who would like to share how they've been capturing the data for their governing body? Or how they're planning on it post June 30? Or has anyone been using a system already? Any questions in the chat, Jen?
- Only just the questions about privacy in terms of, can you split out, if you split out chair from the counsellors, what are the concerns around privacy for reporting that data 'cause it's just one person? And just in general speaking, when a governing body is so small, what are the privacy thresholds?
- We don't actually know those at the moment is the answer to that. I can see if you're suggesting that 10 would be the minimum, and I think that's been a bit of our sense as well, but that's not been fully communicated or I haven't heard that actually from the commission themselves, probably what it might mean is that that data goes to the commission, but it just isn't actually able to be reported on or analysed at an organisational level. So we might know across the local government sector, the numbers of women and men and gender diverse people who are and other intersectional factors, but organisations won't individually know that information to protect that privacy.
- And then just one other question that came up, just on reporting governing body in the unit level upload data, you will still include it in there, but if you don't have salary data, other data, you can leave those fields blank for governing body members, the relevant data for indicator two will still populate in terms of gender and the column where you've noted they are a member of the governing body.
- [Sarah] Kathy, It's Sarah from B Line. This might be an obscure question, but we find ourselves-
- We love obscure questions.
- [Sarah] We find ourselves in a bit of an unusual situation where our board is disbanding as of the 1st of July and we're moving to report into an advisory board as part of DOT, and I'm not too sure how our data should reflect, should our data reflect the present board members up because they're up to and including the 30th. And then when we do the data set the next time, it'll actually be the advisory board that we report on or do we not include them because it would skew data because we'll no longer have a board?
- I'll say it or Jen?
- No, you go, it's okay.
- I think our answer's the same. Our answer is, you need to report on what is there at 30th of June.
- [Sarah] 30th June? All right.
- Yeah, and just probably there'll be an opportunity to note that in your gender equality action plan, that this will look different in future years. And when you do your reporting in future years, you'll be able to note as to why.
- [Sarah] Yeah, okay, great. Thank you.
- No worries. We love that you're and we do love the obscure questions. And we know some councils for example, are under administration as well, so that's a little bit of a different situation too that they're facing. Any other questions or comments on this indicator or other indicator, indicator one?
- Yeah, can I just clarify, this is going back to the privacy issue. So we would fill in the data on the indicative template, and I'm specifically referring to the board issue but there's probably other things for other entities. We fill in the indicative template that goes to the commission, obviously de-identified, but not too hard to work out given our ball is also under 10. When you talk about sharing this with our organisation, I'm assuming you're talking about as part of the GEEP?
- Yes.
- So you saying that we removed this data when we actually put it in the addendum on our GEEPs.
- The template we'll remove that data for you once the privacy protocols are established by the commission, so that will become your annex. Jen, do you want to add to that?
- Yeah, and I would just say, just probably to the other comment, that comment around sharing this data for consultation with the broader organisation, you wouldn't be sharing, you absolutely wouldn't be sharing the template, the indicative reporting template, you'd be sharing your analysis and the information, the findings, you would not be sharing the reporting template with the broader organisation.
- And if you've got privacy concerns, then I'd be erring on the side of caution with what analysis you do share as well through the consultation process too. You might be able to share the results of every single indicator unnecessarily across the organisation, so picking and choosing is recommended.
- So we're gonna get something, when we put our data into the indicative template, it will privacy protect everything that is sensitive. And then so, can we download that data back into some format so it becomes an addendum?
- The data should be uploaded into the reporting portal that should be available hopefully closer to when you submit your gender equality action plan at December 1, if for some reason that portal's not available, it will be in the indicative reporting template format, which will have privacy protection mechanisms built into it. So that when you look at your data sheets, it won't include that information. Does that answer that question? Sorry-
- Yeah, I think so. I'm just interested to see how it's going to do that, but obviously would numbers know the answer to that?
- We don't unfortunately, we're all sort of excitedly and eagerly anticipating looking at that reporting platform and I know they're busy working on it at the moment.
- Yip, that's okay. Thank you.
- Thanks Megan. Anyone else got any comments or questions?
- I have a question if that's okay?
- Hi Casey.
- Casey here. In relation to collecting the intersectional data about the governing body, obviously in this first reporting year, we do not have all the intersectional data across the organisation. Are we with the governing body expected to collect the same data as the greater organisation? Or are we expected to actually collect all that intersectional data for the governing body in this first year as well?
- Good question.
- Does that makes sense?
- Yeah, totally. I hadn't actually thought about it in that particular way and that we understand there'll be data gaps across all the other components, particularly around that. I guess it hasn't really been articulated clearly, if you already have that information for your governing body and your system, and there's a data gap, then you just acknowledge that data gap, if it's a new process that you're implementing, I guess we'd recommend that you look at including the intersectional identity factors as an optional opt-in for your governing body, while communicating with them, how that information will be used and presented and who will have access to it as well. Does that answer the question?
- Yeah, it does. We're thinking of maybe just using an online form or something like that just to collect the data, and I guess using it as a communication piece in itself about the act and why it's happening. So it probably would be fine to collect that data. Thank you.
- Yeah, and particularly if you do an in-person conversation as well, it gives them the opportunity to ask those questions too. Thanks Heather. Anyone else got any questions or comments?
- [Mariana] Sure, I do, just quickly. Sorry my video's not working.
- I know, not showing, who's this?
- [Mariana] Mariana.
- Mariana?
- [Mariana] Yeah. Just quickly, our governing body consists of board members, but we also have committee members, do we included the committee members as well?
- Ooh, Jen, I'll defer this one to you. They have a board and they also have a committee, do they just do the board or do they do the committee as well?
- Does your committee sit above your board or below your board or beside your board?
- [Mariana] I think beside the board.
- Okay. So the guidance from the commission is that some entities might have multiple governing bodies and the requirement is to select the governing body that is the most senior, in that case, if there's no, is there any sense of which is most senior?
- [Mariana] I'd say the board.
- Then I would go with the board, and that matches the guidance of the commission. If you do have a look in the indicative reporting, the commissions audit guide, which is available for download on the audit website, the webpage, it does state that additional guidance that I've just mentioned in the annex, in the definitions, go with the board, go with the governing body that is the most senior, if you have.
- [Mariana] Okay, wonderful. Thank you.
- No worries. Joe, did you have your hand up?
- Yeah.
- Yeah, hi there. I think the consultation questions you're putting forward are really good, and I just know I'm drowning in analysis at the moment, and it'd be really helpful to be able to have a guide around consultation and the types of questions that we can ask. I mean, there's certainly a lot of consultation weariness that I don't know that people would answer it, the people matter survey is so long. But it would be very good once we've gathered the data. I have self-described gender, I have age, I have Aboriginality, but compared to, people aren't self identifying in the data. So it would be really good to have some, will there be a guide coming, I guess is my question on consultation?
- Thanks Joe. We're developing a guide for analysis not for consultation, to support the commission at the moment. And I'm not aware of the consultation guide being developed. Jen, have you heard any conversations around that?
- No, it may be a question that is best asked in the G app sessions, because the consultation does sit in that space, in the gender quality action plan space. So those sessions that are being run by AJIP, otherwise-
- They start next week.
- -for more information.
- Yeah, those G app training start next week. And it's one we can also put in our comments to the commission as well as raised from particular session as well. Thanks, Joe. I think wherever possible, some guidance on consistent questions to ask around these things would be really useful.
- Yeah, they started this week already.
- Oh, they did. Okay, oh good. Have you attended one, Joe?
- Yeah, I did, I had attended on Wednesday, there was a lot of things put forward. Really good. It's just adding a whole layer of complexity too, I'm just not there yet 'cause I'm still doing the analysis and trying to work out the portray levels of CEO, so yeah.
- It's fogged down in the detail at the moment, isn't it? How to get the information to them, be able to do those next stages, but good to flag that consultation guide would be useful.
- Kathy, Alison here, that analysis guide that you just referred to, that you're helping to put together. What's the timeline on that?
- A couple of weeks? I'm not really sure.
- I just wanna add that it's going to the commission next week, but it will likely it won't, as in from us to commission next week, but it's likely it won't be released until the indicative reporting template is confirmed because there'll be some tweaks that need to happen based on, it really does hinge on that being completed and confirmed, so it will not be shared publicly I imagined this month before the end of June.
- No, fair enough, thank you.
- Guidance-
- No, no, great. Thank you.
- I'm just noting, I guess that some of the kinds of questions that will be flagged in that guide will be similar to some of the questions we're flagging through each of these sessions as well. So it's kind of key questions that you might wanna ask yourself of the data as you go through.
- No great, 'cause it will be really good to have a consolidated view of it. 'Cause obviously it's hard necessarily to come to all of these, so to be able to collect it all in one will be excellent, thank you.
- No worries, thanks Alison.
- I'm just gonna jump in there, Kathy, and we'll just say as part of our drafting of the analysis guidance, we are sharing it with some entities to review and provide feedback, so if you are already in the analysis stage, please do feel free to email me at auditing@genderworks.com.edu, if you would like to put yourself forward to provide any comment on that draught version, we would welcome that if that's something you're in the space to do over the next couple of weeks.
- Thanks Jen. Any other comments or questions or thoughts?
- [Megan] Me again.
- Oh great, who's me? Megan, was it?
- [Megan] Yip.
- Yip, go for it.
- So once they've asked these questions, is there any advice on, so let's just talk about the types of workers, whether they're part-time, casual, and we see a trend in our workforce that we see that there is lesser managers with part-time employment types. Is there any advice on where it's best to get data to compare it to what is acceptable or what is not? So it's great to have this data, but how do you know if it's good or bad?
- Really good questions, and I'd actually step it back to something else and I'll let Jen answer where to get the data from, if she knows. Is what's your vision for your organisation for gender equality, so I'd step it right back to you, your case for change, that you'll be starting to think about and your vision, because if your vision is for an equitable and inclusive workplace and workforce, then potentially, and I guess not necessarily with, I guess in terms of when we look at composition at all levels, you'd be looking at equitable representation based on society across all levels and including intersectional factors. And then when it comes to part-time, you'll be understanding that through a lens of part-time work enables people of all genders to be carers within their families and community members, and so therefore those opportunities need to be equitably available to everyone at all levels in the organisation, regardless of the role they're performing. And then it may not be sustainable for that to be next week or next year, but what does your organisation see as the vision for the next four years, in four years time what are you going to be proud of to report on in terms of flexibility? Noting that we're in a competitive environment and everyone else across the state is also moving towards that flexible mode. So I guess there, my kinds of philosophical musings about how you facilitate those discussions with your leaders, and then look at the WGA, which is the corporate sector, obviously, but it is a good place for data. And then the VPSC as well have data available too, and you may be able to benchmark yourselves. And depending on your sector as well, you'll be able to talk to peers and colleagues to see what they're proposing to get to within the next four years as well. So that you're all kind of moving together as well, could be quite nice too. Anything to add, Jen?
- Not really, I don't think, for the Australian area, yeah, absolutely, the VPSC's state of the public sector report, which they release, I think annually, is the best place for data. And they do have a wealth of data for boards, for each of the indicators, not exactly matching the requirements of this audit, but really similar. And then there's some other, so if you, on the commission's website, I think it's on the support page. They are slowly adding new practise guides and resources under each of the indicators. So there's a bit more there. I'm just trying to think, I haven't seen anything specific to the health sector at this stage, but there might be other things that come up, I think also through, not helpful for this year, but after submission in December, that will be really the commission's role to start to pull data together and where possible do a bit more comparative analysis to start to think about benchmarking and things like that. So that will help over this reporting period. It's a slow build, but that will start to help you to look at what you've got and compare it to what other entities have got over '22, '23, '24, '25. Not helpful right now though, but generally speaking, yeah, that's my general aim.
- And you'll also be able to look at each other's gender quality action plans online after this year as well 'cause they'll have to be published. And I guess you can make changes as well, I understand, to your GEEP as well, so if you find you have a really rapid cultural transformation of your leadership's understanding of gender equality and a commitment to progress, then you might wanna really extend those targets as well.
- And someone's just noted in the chat, Christine, that the commission is looking for people to develop and provide comment on the reporting platform. And there is an email there in the chat just in case people are interested in that and haven't seen that chat. Thanks for sharing that, Christine.
- Any other questions or comments? Last opportunity, going once, going twice? We're all done? We love it when we exhaust you of questions. Nope, there's not another one there.
- That was just me responding to an earlier question. I just was running back through the chat to see if we missed anything.
- Well, we hope today has given you an opportunity to hear from each other about some of the things that you're doing and some of the barriers and some of the things that we can and can't know at this particular point and some of the work arounds different entities of finding. We really enjoyed the conversation and having a chat with you all. And we do appreciate that we did delay this session as well by a week, so we really appreciate your consideration and kindness to us in that space as well. We will see some of you back online later this morning or early this afternoon and others next week. And just a reminder, this session has been recorded. We will be sending it out next week as an MP4 file, I believe along with the slides from today's session. Please share those with your colleagues if you have found them useful, and you can always email us any feedback at GenderWorks as well. And we look forward to seeing you soon in the future. And good luck. Thanks everyone.
- Thanks all.
Updated