- Welcome, everybody. We just have quite a few people to admit into the session, so we will take a minute or two to just wait for everyone to come in before we get started. You may also notice up there on the screen that just a reminder, this session is being recorded today so that we can share it with participants, and also so that we can share it with those that tried to register, but were unable to 'cause of the limits on the room. Just for those of you who have just come into the room, I'd just let you know, we're waiting a couple of minutes as we let people in. We are expecting a large group, so we'll wait, maybe one more minute until we get started. We will get started. I would like to start the session by acknowledging the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation as the Traditional Owners of the land on which I sit, and also take a moment to acknowledge the elders, past, present, and emerging, and extend that respect to any Aboriginal people here with us in the room today. Before we move into the session, just for those of you who've just come in, I would just like to confirm that the session is being recorded and this recording will be for those of you in the room to reference later, and also for those entities who were unable to register to attend today, and we will record the full session presentation Q and A and discussion. Along with the recording, we'll also be sharing a PDF of the PowerPoint slides. So today we're looking at Indicator 5: Recruitment and Promotion Practises in the Workplace. The majority of you have all attended our longer audit sessions. So you know the drill of how this works, Kathy and I are your co-facilitators. We represent consulting partnership for GenderWorks Australia. So we're not commissioned employees, but we're on the commission's panel of providers to support entities, to meet the obligations under the Gender Equality Act. A few quick points about how we'll run the session. As with all workplace discussions of gender equality, I do wanna note that participating can raise issues for individuals at any time. And if participating in this session does raise any issues for you, I really do encourage you to contact your organization's EAP provider as the first point of call, or another service, including those listed on the screen up there, 1-800 Respect or Safe Steps. As with our earlier analysis sessions, we really do encourage you to use the chat function. We are expecting up to 80 participants today, so that's probably the best way for us all to raise questions initially. We'll monitor the questions as they come up, and we've also dedicated quite a bit of time for Q and A later in the session. The only other note really to make is in terms of the focus. I really just wanna note that our focus, GenderWorks through the sessions. Our focus is on supporting you to be able to analyse your data set for Indicator 5. We do know that there are lots of questions regarding the format of the reporting template and some troubleshooting that does need to happen there, and is happening at the moment, the commission is working on that, but I will just note that the commission is best placed to answer those questions around troubleshooting the template. We can take questions today. We may not be able to answer them, but our focus is really on supporting you to analyse your data set once you've got your complete data set in front of you. Just in terms of, I guess where that sits, you'd be doing a lot with your data through the year this year, collecting, analyse, consulting, and responding, and reporting on your data. So, as I mentioned in the collection phase, the commission's working on troubleshooting the template, updates are coming, aiming, as I understand to come to you later this month, and the reporting platform is also being built where presenting these analysis sessions, taking your questions on board, answering what we can, and also producing a narrative document guidance note on analysis for all of the indicators that will be shared with entities in July likely. And then one of the other panel providers, as you all know, is supporting you to consult and respond to that data through your Gender Equality Action Plan processes in your Gender Equality Action Plan training. So that's the setup, that's where we are. We're focusing on Indicator 5 for today, so recruitment and promotion practises in the workplace. I'll just confirm our data set what you're looking with. Sorry about that. We've got your workforce data, so tables 5.1 to 5.5 in your indicative reporting template and Sheet 5a, which is where you will look at intersectional gender desegregation if you are collecting intersectional data for your employees, so that's your data on Aboriginality age, disability, cultural identity, religion, and sexual orientation. And you've also got for Indicator 5, employee experience data. So among those questions, there's currently 13 survey questions mapped to Indicator 5. So you'll be looking at response data there when you do your Indicator 5 analysis. So we've really got two topics to focus on, recruitment and promotion practises. We do know they are really very interrelated and lots of questions will relate to both of those areas. But what we're going to do today is focus first on recruitment for the first half of the session, and secondly, on the promotion practises. Some of the questions might be, as may cover both those areas. So how it really is going to work, I'll do a presentation for about 10 minutes related to the data and recruitment and feel free to put questions in the chat. And then we'll take about 15 minutes to respond to group questions in the chat or questions that you bring up. And then we'll go onto promotion practises and do the same. We've got until 3:30, and our aim really is to provide you the really basic information on the data set and provide you with enough time to ask the questions that you've been waiting to ask. Step in, Kathy, if anything comes up in the chat that I've missed. So we'll look at recruitment first, first at your workforce data set. As you all know, table 5.1, you'll all be quite familiar with that table. You're looking at gender composition of people recruited for the financial year to end 30 June, 2021. And you'll see your mapping that by classification level and by employment basis. So all of you will be mapping by classification, analysing by classification and employment basis. The key difference that's really going to affect different entities in their analysis is how you've mapped your classification levels, 'cause your table will arrange your recruitment headcount by classification level. And we do know from talking to lots of different entities that there's challenges here, and there's been some questions around what approach is best to take with a mapping to classification levels. But your approach to analysis here is really gonna depend on the decision you've made. We know some entities are mapping by reporting level to CEO. Some are mapping by class EA levels, and others are mapping by a mix of that, so management levels and occupational groupings. What I'm going to do is just put a quick poll up on the screen one question. With a few different options for how you're mapping classification levels to hear from you, because that may inform how we discuss the analysis of recruitment and promotion data. I'll just launch that poll now up on the screen, just one question, but quite a few options. I'll just allow another couple of more minutes for people to complete them, share those results as is. Can everyone see that up on screen? Yep, so we can see probably about almost 20% of you don't know yet and 30% of your organisation hasn't decided. So there's a lot of considerations still in the works there. 30% of you are mapping by reporting level to CEO, which was the original standard guidance. And there has been additional guidance to avoid duplication to map to your levels in your enterprise agreement. As we talk through the analysis, some people have noted, they don't have that up on the screen. Oh, perfect, thanks, Kathy. So I can say that just over 30% of you are mapping by reporting level to CEO, if you can all see that now. Most of the kind of discussion we have around analysis today is based on that, the assumption that people are mapping in that way. But as I can see, there's a few other options coming. we'll try and thread that into the discussion today. I can see a couple of things coming up in the chat.
- So the question was, do we have a choice in which way we map it? That is the data for the audit.
- There is a choice in terms of classification mapping to a degree. So the general guidance is map by reporting level to CEO, but in lots of organisations, particularly in certain sectors, for example, the health sector, it's been difficult to do that because there isn't necessarily the standard hierarchy, as you might see in the public service. So in PBS departments or in local councils potentially, the commission has expanded their guidance slightly to suggest that you could also try to map to your EA. And that's been simple for some organisations who just have one or two EA's, not so simple for entities who are working with 10 plus, 15 plus EA's, which we found to be the case with some entities. And the guidance from the commission essentially now is do what works for you in terms of your mapping, based on the options we've just discussed and think about what will make the most sense for you in terms of pay equity analysis. We do discuss that a bit more in our pay equity session, but at this stage, there's no further guidance, documented guidance from the commission on mapping, beyond what's in the audit guide and what I've just mentioned just now. New guidance from the commission is just an... There was an addition of a couple of sentences into the audit guide. So the current version of the audit guide that's up on the screen is what I mean when I say new guidance.
- And there was a question around skewing the data by reporting level, for example, admin support reporting up at a higher level, they'll be needing to base the manipulation.
- Yeah, they will, that's one question that's come up quite a bit in terms of, even if you're doing reporting to CEO, which about a third of you in the room today are doing, you will still need to do some manual level of manipulation exactly for that reason. You know, for example, if you've got EAs, two executives, they may appear at a level in the classification, which isn't necessarily representative of where they should sit in this kind of analysis. I'm probably would say that there will be lots of questions on classification and we would prefer not to answer those through the discussion. They might come up later when we have Q and A about analysis, but I will just leave those questions that are in the chat at this stage and move on and we can come back to them. We are documenting all of them though, to pass on to the commission. I will just assure you of that. So recruit, you've got table 5.1, which we've looked at, you also have in Sheet 5a, which is your intersection or data. You need to be looking at gender composition of people who exited the defined entity and that's by Aboriginality, age, disability, ethnicity, and race, religion, and sexual orientation. We do know that no entity is going to have data to fill each of those tables. So there's a separate table for each of those entities, but that many of you will have data where you're able to populate potentially for age, because that's something that's collected, some for Aboriginality and disability, but those are the tables. As we understand, very few entities will have data that they're able to complete in those tables. Before we look at analysis, I also just wanna bring in confirmation of your employee experience status set, and then we'll have a look at analysis of recruitment altogether. So when you look at your employee experience, data set for recruitment. As I mentioned earlier, there's 13 questions currently mapped to Indicator 5. If you want to see that mapping for all of the indicators, you can go to the commissions audit webpage and download the employee experience survey. It's a list of the questions. And in the far right column, there is mapping to each of the indicators to give you a sense of which questions map for analysis under which indicator, but the questions mapped to Indicator 5 look at fair recruitment and promotion decisions, diversity and inclusion in the workplace. So looking at your work group manager and senior leaders support for diversity and inclusion, equal opportunity. So asking participants in the survey whether age, gender, disability, sexual orientation, cultural background, or being Aboriginal, and/or Torres Strait Islander, whether those identities are a barrier to success, and finally learning and development, it's that perception of access and opportunity for development and promotion, and whether different identities create different barriers for access to those development and promotion opportunities. So these questions that are mapped to Indicator 5, you'll be analysing those to uncover both recruitment and promotion data. Apart from that first question, they're recruitment and promotion decisions, all of them, even though they don't specify, maps to both of those areas. So that's a full data set for recruitment under Indicator 5. The only thing I'll note before we talk a little bit through how you might approach your analysis of this data set, is that just to reassure you, there will be gaps. We know there are many gaps and that not just in the intersectional data, also in other data, we know that entities are having problems completing the table, but the key thing for you will be really to document those gaps, document your systems barriers and not let that derail your analysis, I guess, in the sense that document your gaps account for those gaps in your analysis, but make sure that you are still completing an analysis of the data available so that when it comes time for you to define strategies and measures, your strategies and measures will respond to your data gaps, so improving your data collection systems and also will respond to what you find in your analysis of the data you have available. And it will be really important to make sure that that happens, that you're analysing and responding and also analysing your gaps and responding. So when we look at analysing these kind of recruitment workforce data, a couple of key points to remember, you always need to be desegregating by gender as your primary measure. And this is really because the primary focuses of your analysis is on identifying differences between experiences and outcomes for employees of different genders. In the context of the act, that's women, men, and people of self-described gender as the three groups, and your intention is to unmask trends and patterns between different genders that might otherwise be hidden in aggregate organisational data. So that is data that's not gender dis-aggregated. You will only need to desegregate by an analyse intersectional identities where you have that data and where privacy thresholds are met. So what that means is where you have the number of individuals who identify under certain intersectional cohorts is sufficient to be able to prevent there being any danger of that person being identified, or the idea that they might be reasonably identified in that data. You won't necessarily need, once the reporting platform from the commission is built for the data, that will hold the responsibility for managing those privacy thresholds in the sense that when you input your data, it won't all be displayed for you to analyse. But at this stage, you do need to be very careful as you're collecting your data, potentially doing test audit and doing test analysis of that, you will need to be really careful about the information. You're looking at the information you're sharing and the information you're discussing to make sure that you are protecting the privacy of your employees. And that holds for both the data and your workforce table, and also the data that you will get back from your employee experience survey. So really keeping those key points in mind, the overarching focus of your analysis in any of the questions you're asking of your data, where you should really start and what you should build from is asking that first question, does your aggregate data tell a different story to your data for individual genders? And once you start to answer that question, you can start to unpack that more deeply. So it's about documenting what differences do you see between genders and what differences do you see between genders, employment types, across classification levels? So the kind of things you might ask to answer those questions, when you have your table for 5.1, the recruitment data table in front of you, the kinds of things you might look for initially, for example, comparing your overall gender composition of recruitment with the recruitment numbers at each classification level. So are there differences in the way that that gender composition plays out at each level compared to overall composition? You might be looking at recruitment numbers in your management level and the gender split there. And can you see when you work down through the stages? So from management through middle tier management, lower tier management, through your banding levels, if you have banding levels, or through your reporting levels to CEO, if you're looking down through reporting levels to CEO. When you look at the differences in representation for women and men, and gender diverse people at the top level, do those differences hold? Do they stay the same? Do they decline? Do they increase as you shift through the levels? And then you might even look at, if you can identify in your organisation, a graduate entry-level in your classification levels. If you've mapped by reporting level to CEO, you might look at that level and look at the gender split of new recruits, and then track that gender split at every level above the graduate level to see if it's matched, you might have vary at graduate level entry, or you might have a lot more women being recruited at graduate level, or a lot more men being recruited at graduate level. And that might tell you that for your access to your talent pool for your recruitment at that level, you've done a really targeted approach to achieve equitable recruitment, but as you move up through the levels, you might start to see a decline. So for example, then you might start to ask, why is the percentage split not holding? Why are we able to recruit 60% women graduates, but then not hold that proportional split? As we move up through the levels, why at management level do we only see 20% women, 30% women, 40% women, for example? And the kind of questions you will ask if you start with these base questions, as you start to see differences, then you can start to ask further questions to unpack those differences, potentially comparing, you first compare just gender, but then you can bring employment type into the mix and start to look at comparing your data by gender and employment type, and start to understand how the needs of flexible work, the need for part-time employment for certain genders might be excluding people from the recruitment process. That's really just open examples. I'll just take a quick look at the employee experience data, and then open it to questions that anyone might have if you've started to do test analysis, or you're starting to think about what this might look like in your organisation. Just looking at the analysing your employee experience data, one of the key questions for recruitment is going to be the response to the question, my organisation makes their recruitment decisions based on merit. So this is not an actual organization's data, this is just an example. So if you're not familiar with the employee experience survey, I imagine that most of you are, it is a series of statements that people need to respond by their level of agreement to, so strongly agree through, to strongly disagree. There's about 20 demographic questions, and one of them being gender. So for every response to the survey, every question in the survey, you're able to disaggregate your response data at least by gender and potentially by other intersectional identities, depending on the number of respondents that you have. So this example, when you might be analysing your data, the statement is my organisation makes their recruitment decisions based on merit. And you're able to desegregate the percentage split by men and women. And you'll see that the number of men who agree or strongly disagree with that statement in this example is more than 70%. Whereas the number of women who strongly disagree with this statement that the organisation makes their recruitment decisions based on merit is much lower than that percentage. So what you might do with this data is look at the difference in perceptions of men and women, compare the data that you have from your workforce data to see if they are inequities, and start to think about how you can pull that data together to make some guesses educated assumptions, evidence-based guesses about what that data is telling you that you'll then bring to consultation with your executive, with members of your staff to test that data, test your findings in your analysis, and then start to build strategies and measures that you'll also consult with your staff on, with your employees on about what the cause of these challenges are that you've identified and what the strategies and measures might be that help you respond to those challenges. I've just given only one example there of a graph, but there are other questions in the employee experience data mapped to, that will inform your recruitment thinking. So questions around whether an employee feels that their work group, their managers or their senior leaders actively support diversity inclusion, and whether certain identities are seen as a barrier to success in the organisation. So it will be important to think about not just dis-aggregating responses to those questions by gender, but also think about potentially dis-aggregating them by gender and other identities. If you have enough responses, or by gender and employment type, as that's a question that can help you map your employee experience data back to your workforce data, because that also can be dis-aggregated by gender and employment type or gender and intersectional identities if you have enough responses. That is really the overall run through of the recruitment data. Before we move on to promotion, I'm really happy to spend some time taking any questions that you may have. If you've done some tests analysis, Kathy, have you been tracking the chat? Do you mind just letting me know if there's any frequent questions in the chat that we should pick up?
- The first one is, how do we know if it's a fair recruitment decision if we don't know the gender identity of those people that applied? So going back to the previous slide, we only know those who were recruited.
- Yeah, it's a really good point, I think. And it's why in the, can't be caption in your workforce data or in your employee experience data, but it is why one of the recommendations for the consultation phase, which comes after you've done your initial analysis is to seek information through consultation with unsuccessful applicants. It's a difficult thing to seek information on, but if you're not able to seek information this year, it will be important potentially to think about how you might establish systematic ways to collect that data in the future. So when people potentially are unsuccessful, they may also receive a link to a survey, potentially a couple of questions which might test or ask about their experience of the recruitment process. It's a difficult space to be in, of course, because people are, it's difficult to ask information on someone who has been unsuccessful for the job, but if you are quite systematic in potentially sending out short survey question as a part of that whole recruitment process, you may start to be able to build some further data on that.
- Next one is, how will people metadata be mapped to the reporting tool?
- So people matter and your workforce data separate, but complimentary, I guess, is the best way to say it. So the way that they are mapped to the people metadata is that response to certain questions are mapped to specific indicators. There is no mapping in terms of you don't put your data from employee experience responses into the indicative reporting template, they're not merged or connected in that way. The only mapping of people matter is question response to a particular indicator to inform which responses you should be really looking at to help you do your analysis under each indicator. I'm not sure if that answers that question.
- I think it does, the guidance note on the audit states, the data relating to intersectional gender inequality, call it ingrain should be included where available and where the group size is large enough to protect enmity. How do we determine what is large enough?
- So at this stage for employee experience survey, you need to have more than 10 responses to even consider analysing. The indicative reporting template is, I don't know, at this stage that there is a number, but I do know that that's one of the things the commission is working on in terms of building privacy protocols into the way the indicative reporting template represents data. So that at this stage, really, if you're looking at your unit level upload, which is one spreadsheet, which automatically populates four of your indicators, once you do that upload, individual employee lines, the data may be removed and it won't be automatically populated, or it'll still be in the unit level upload. I can't really speak in more detail to what they're doing at the backend of the designing, the reporting, the new version of the reporting template or the reporting platform, because I'm not privy to that information, but I do know that they are building it into that reporting platform.
- And there was just a couple of comments on the particular question around merit and the challenges of perception with merit and unconscious bias that feeds into merit, and I guess concerns about the question in general.
- Yeah, I think that is absolutely an ongoing question. And I think probably the usefulness of that question will be potentially if you see, so we know that merit is often used to reinforce the status quo, that it's something that people use to mask the fact that there may be bias in the recruitment process. And when you do look at the responses to that question, if you're finding that responses from a certain gender or responses from a certain gender and other identity, strongly disagreeing with that statement, it really does lend support to debunking that notion of merit that your organisation might be putting forward. That's really all that I can say to that response. I think that there absolutely are challenges with the question, the notion of merit, sorry, but when you desegregate your responses, you can start to see differences that will help you to also unpack perceptions of merit, I think.
- Is there any indication as to whether the recording template will produce graphs or infographics to assist with analysis?
- The Excel template? No, the reporting platform potentially, but it's unclear when that's going to be ready or what the design of that is going to look like. So at this stage, I would probably say, and we can check this with the commission plan for producing graphs for your analysis yourself. That will be the case with employee experience data. Absolutely your data set won't include when it comes back to you from VPLC, it's not going to include graphs and things like that. You need to be accounting for time to do that yourself.
- And I think they are all the key questions, Jen.
- Awesome, if anything does come up, feel free to just pop it back into the chat.
- The chat, I guess.
- Oh yeah, just copy paste the question again as well, if we have missed it, but we'll move on to have a look at recruitment and promotion, sorry, promotion practises. So there's a few more tables and promotion practises in your workforce status set. So in your indicative reporting template, you've got three tables. So looking at permanent promotions, career development opportunities, higher duties, and internal secondments. There are some questions I know at this stage around the higher duties requirement, and there's a conflict in the reporting template, conflict between the guide and the reporting template. So one is asking for those in higher duties in the final fortnight of the financial year. And the other is asking for number of higher duties through the year to the end of the financial year, it's being looked at, I can't answer which one is correct at this stage. The other challenge in the reporting template that we've been made aware of from entities is a couple of these only asked for, so for example, permanent promotion by gender and classification, but there's a column for employment basis in the table. The guidance from the commission is that use the table at this stage, if there is any conflict in terms of what's being asked, use the table for reference with further information to come when the template is updated, that's currently underway. So the other thing to note, I guess, for these four table is that we know lots of entities based on discussions in our initial audit sessions and discussions with the commission, lots of entities will not have full and complete tables for these four tables. There's challenges in terms of definition and tracking of promotion in particular, and in some cases internal secondments, and also tracking of career development opportunities. We're hearing from many entities that they're not able to track those career development opportunities mapped to individual's payroll data. So they're not able to track that by gender employment basis and classification. The only thing I'd note there really is that document those gaps so that you can make sure that as you work through your analysis of the data you have available and define your strategies and measures, you're also working through defining strategies that improve your data collection capabilities. So you can demonstrate progress in that process, as well as progressing workplace gender equality, more broadly. And Sheet 5a, the same tables, those same four tables that were on the previous slide. So permanent promotion, career development, higher duties, and internal secondments, if you have intersectional data, there will be those same tables for those groups. So I've just put one up there on the slide as an example. So you'll be mapping that. So for Aboriginality, for example, it would be dis-aggregating by gender and then desegregating further by those who identify as Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander, and those who do not identify as Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander or those who prefer not to say. As another example, if you're looking at age, it would be desegregated by gender and then dis-aggregated by the age ranges. So 15 to 24, 25 to 34, for example, so that you'd be able to have a look at those tables in your reporting template. In the current version, as I understand that they're not all in there, but they will all look exactly the same as tables for 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 with the addition of that extra desegregation, what you can see highlighted in yellow there up on the screen. And it's the same questions mapped to Indicator 5 that we just discussed when we looked at recruitment. So it's when you analyse that employee experience data, a lot of the insights that you find will apply across recruitment and promotion, across all areas of this indicator. The only additional, I'm not sure if we had in the previous slide, learning and development perception of access and opportunity for development and promotion. I can't remember if I had that on the original slide, but that's in there as well in these questions about the Indicator 5. Sorry, I'm seeing my chat go wild, but I can't actually say it when I'm sharing the screen. Can you just let me know, Kathy, if there's anything in particular?
- Yeah, there's a couple of questions. So one is about promotion, and particularly in the local government sector where you're required to apply for jobs alongside with external candidates. And the question is, can we not report on this for this year?
- If it's a gap that you're not able to report on, they're not able to collect the data, then you might be able to collect the data and report on that is, Kathy, I'm not sure if you had more to add in response to that one.
- Maybe just that we're aware that some organisations are doing manual checking, so aligning position level at the side of the, against position level at the end of the year to track movement at the same level within the organisation, doesn't need to be reported on. But if you can do a manual check to see if someone's position has increased, then you can potentially report on that, yeah.
- Thanks, Kathy. Was there anything else you wanted to pick up?
- Yeah, it's about ANS codes and local government, and when do we expect those?
- Not sure that we, the contents, so that question's right there, mappings in progress with the commission, but we can't answer the question on when that will come, I don't think, because it's enough.
- Is there a date in August to expect the People Matters survey results yet?
- As I understand that in the communication I've seen direct from the PSC, it's the beginning of the second week of August. So the end of the first week of August, maybe-
- Not sure.
- But that was what was originally, yeah, I'm not sure about that. I know that for some entities, they were given the option to, or maybe all entities were given the option to extend the period of time that People Matters was open. So I'm not sure how that is interacting with deadlines when the data will come back.
- Another question we probably can't answer is when is the final version of the reporting template expected?
- Later this month is the only information that we have, unfortunately, that's the reporting template, not the reporting platform, the reporting platform won't be until later in the year.
- Which I think answers the next question. Do we work off the Excel template and then upload it to the platform later in the year? Yes, we do. I haven't read this question in advance, for higher duties, what if the same person completed several higher duties in the last 12 months? Do you just count it as one person or count each higher duty activity?
- That question, I'm not able to answer until it's confirmed what the actual measure for higher duties is going to be, if it's going to be, yeah, obviously, you would encounter it if it's going to be just in the last two weeks, the number of hot people in higher duties in that period. But that one I'm not able to answer. We can document that one and see what the commission has to tell us there. Sorry, Amy.
- The final one's a good question, what is ANS code mapping? That refers to Indicator 7 and gender segregated areas of the workforce. So we'll cover that one off when we look at Indicator 7, but looks at job classifications and allows you to see across your organisation, if there's pockets where one gender may dominate a specific workforce.
- [Linden] Hi, Kathy, my question was, it's Linden here. It was referring to, you just said that there was some mapping that's going on with ANS code, I don't know what the ANS coding is, so that mapping process.
- So the mapping processes is that local government previously didn't have any guidance materials on how to map their workforce against the ANS codes. And the work that's being undertaken is a guide to support local governments specifically to map those. There are ANS code guides for other sectors on the VPS, so the Victorian Public Sector website for other industries to inform that mapping process, does that make sense?
- [Linden] That does, thank you, I'll check out what they have on offer for universities, thanks.
- Thank you.
- [Amy] So, building on that question, then the previous information provided was that we would not have to do any mapping that it would be provided. Now you mentioned we will be getting guidance on how to do the mapping, which indicates we will still need to execute that activity. Can you clarify a little bit further? 'Cause that could be still a fair bit of work that we discounted needing to do, sorry, Amy.
- I'm not sure to answer it, unfortunately until we actually see the guidance materials that are released, sorry. Jen, do you have anything to add to that one?
- No, only that yeah, I don't know what the guidance materials actually look like, so I don't know if it's specific mapping that's been done that you then need to replicate in your systems, or if it's guidance on how you would do the mapping. Unfortunately, I'm not sure, we'll have to wait to hear from the commission, what that's going to look like.
- But we can take that on notice that particular question around the resourcing and the time that is required to do that as well.
- Thanks, Amy. So, similarly to, you'll be taking the same. So looking at how you might be analysing your promotion data, it may be the case that for some of you, as I mentioned, you don't have all four tables and you might be focusing on just one or two of those tables to be looking at. So you'd be taking a very similar approach that we mentioned with recruitment, in the sense that your overarching focus is going to be always desegregate by gender as your primary measure. And always start by looking at what differences there are in the gender data, as compared with the aggregate organisational data, with, i.e, the data that doesn't desegregate by gender. But some of the more specific questions you might be asking in terms of promotion or those promotion tables might be, if you have a career development table, if you're able to populate that table and compare the gender composition of access to career development opportunities, with the composition at each classification level. So that is if you are mapping your classifications by reporting level to CEO, or by EA not by occupational grouping, then you can start to look at differences potentially as you move up or down those classification levels in the representation of women, men, and gender diverse people in career development opportunities and see how there might be differences in the way access plays out. And then look at when you track that data, you can look at your responses in your employee experience survey to the statements about satisfaction with learning and development needs or adequate opportunities to develop skills and experience, and see if there's more information you could find there. So for example, you might look at your career development opportunities data in your workforce data, and you might see that at graduate level or at entry level, that there is equity of representation in career development opportunities across all employment types. As you move up your classification levels, if you're looking at reporting level to CEO, you might see potentially that there is equal access for women and men in full-time employment types to career development opportunities, but the access to when you start to compare with access to career development opportunities for part-time workers, you might see that there's a real difference there. And then you can start to potentially unpack those differences when you look at your responses during employee experienced data that guide you around perceptions of access and desegregating that data to understand women's perception, women in part-time arrangements perception, young women's perception, all the women's perception, for example, of access to learning and development opportunities. So there are lots of different ways to cut the data and desegregate the data. If this is an overwhelming process, really do always start with just your aggregate organisational data, the trends you can see by classification level or employment type, desegregate that by gender and nothing else at this stage, and start to look at differences that you can see, and then disaggregate further to start building a more complete picture. Some of the questions that we've talked about that you might ask about career development opportunities, it's really the same questions that you might be asking when you're looking at promotions, and internal secondments and higher duties if you have that data available, we know that this year, many of you won't necessarily have that data available in a full and complete way to be able to analyse. I will, we've got 10 minutes left. So probably what I'd really prefer to do is keep it to questions now, if anyone wants to bring up any questions about any of the information that we've talked about in terms of recruitment and promotion, the data sets we've talked about, the approach to analysis, I will before we take questions, just note that a PDF of the PowerPoints will be shared with participants along with the recording. And also note that based on a lot of the questions, that'll also inform our writing of the narrative, a guidance note for analysis that we're preparing for the commission. So please do ask any question that's on your mind at this stage, and we'll see what we can do to answer them now and respond to them in any further guidance that we're preparing.
- I just wanted to say thanks, thanks very much for that overview. That was just, to say it in a fairly clear way. And I know you're doing one of these for each of the indicators, and I know that they'd been moved around a little bit based on a variety of,
- Yes, thank you for everyone's understanding also, I should have said that at the beginning of this section.
- Circumstances, so it'll be the same kind of format where you'll have a presentation for each of the indicators. So, one and two is, well, I've got it in my calendar for tomorrow, This one we're doing is further down the track. So yeah, the format seems to work quite well. And I think will be a very useful reference guide to support, so I just wanted to say that.
- Thank you, thanks very much, Alison. Yeah, that's absolutely right. They'll be really similar. The only one that's slightly different is the pay equity one, 'cause we do a little bit more of an explanation of what pay equity means for those who aren't yet doing pay equity analysis. But otherwise, that will be very similar.
- There's a few questions popping in. Can we point them to the notification from the commission that advised? We didn't have to classify employees to CEO level. I know it's a discussion from the way does it say.
- It's in the audit guide, and it doesn't necessarily say you don't have, the language is not, you don't have to classify employees to CEO level, the guidance is that you classify employees to CEO level, for those who have an EA, you may wish to do that instead. I know that's kind of a semantic thing, but I just wanted to clarify that. I'll just check quickly the audit guide-
- But we follow up after the session with a page.
- Yeah.
- Yeah, are we submitting all our raw data to the commission?
- So how it works with, if you weren't submitting anything at this stage, you will populate your indicative reporting template, the Excel spreadsheet when you extract your data from your systems, you'll then analyse that, bring that analysis to consultation, design strategies and measures for your Gender Equality Action Plan. Then on the 1st of December, or by the 1st of December, you'll submit your Gender Equality Action Plan along with your analysis, your audit data then, in terms of do you submit raw data, you will be submitting a version of the data and indicative reporting template. If the reporting platform is ready, you'll be uploading there. Otherwise, the Excel spreadsheet will go as an annex to your Gender Equality Action Plan, but there is no requirement to submit it in anything ahead of that 1st of December, and there's no requirement to submit your analysis graphs and things like that, that's really for you to start to unpack the data, to bring to consultation and to use to define your strategies and measures. They don't need to necessarily go into your Gender Equality Action Plan or be uploaded as an annex to your Gender Equality Action Plan.
- This next question is about the health sector, but I think it applies across a range of sectors. You using career development opportunities relating purely to professional development, health, professional training, or just pure leadership training.
- I'm happy to reply to respond to that, but I will also just, if there are any entities who want to share what they're doing in terms of career development opportunities in the chat or in the discussion, otherwise, I can jump in and just mention some things that I've been discussing.
- Responses in there.
- [Megan] I'm happy to speak. So it's Megan from Eastern Health. I've had a couple of conversations with the commissioner on this topic, and essentially, the answer is, it's up to you what you include, what you perceive is career development within your organisation. I queried, I actually gave the list of all the different types of career training or types of training that we have and how some of them do move into career development and some are clearly not. So the advice was given that mandatory, or standard training that is brought about by somebody maintaining their professional standards. It's quite okay to not include that, because that's about professional standards, even though there can be some kind of crossover, it's more things like leadership programmes that you've got, and the very key part of the advice was something that would lead to a future promotion, or could lead to a future promotion for the individual. So graduate programmes, transition to specialty practise in both medical and nursing and midwifery, things like that, all of that should be included as part of your career development. I don't know if that's of any help at all.
- [Jim] Yeah, I was just going to add, so it's Jim here. I used to be at Alex, at the level crossing removal project. So within MTIA, and they have what, we just coined is that ADPs, Accelerated Development Programmes and they had a range of those that targeted at different VPs classification levels. And essentially, it's in the spirit of exactly how Megan just described, so it's around the career development over a 12 to 18 month window with a view to promotion at the end. And so that would be something that we would probably consider in that regard.
- Thanks, Jim.
- We were also postgraduate programmes, even though they're organised by third parties, the healthcare HDS and health obviously supports those programmes, and provides for study and exam leave and et cetera, et cetera. So I asked the question about that as well, would that be considered? And they said, yeah, actually, that is about somebody participating in career development and it's something that Eastern Health support. So they're interested in those numbers, but they were very clear, it's about what you have access to and what you want to define. They know that there is gonna be a big and a vast array of answers that are gonna come back on this one. As long as you just define what you're doing and you'll be correct.
- Additionally, is there a Gender Equality Action Plan template?
- At this stage, no, it may be one that comes through in the training, the age gap that one of the other members of the panel of providers is running on Gender Equality Action Plan training. That isn't one from the commission though.
- And just a clarification that the data submitted for the 1st of December will be that is completed at the 30th of June. So the answer is based on the data collected at the end of June. So the answer for that one is yes. The next one is our end of 10 years considered exits for the previous 12 months?
- That is a question I cannot answer, it's a question that's come up. And I know the commission, it's on their issues register, but I'm not sure. Sorry, is the answer to that one.
- Would we be expected to publish our old or raw data without Gender Quality Action Plan on our website?
- No.
- And then the final one is around councils with more than 200 employees who work multiple roles, would you allow one person to have multiple entries or would you collate them, I guess, with a primary role allocated to them? It's making that annualised figures very inaccurate.
- Yeah, I don't, that is not actually, I don't know the answer to that one. We can pass it on to the commission and I'm not sure that there's guidance. I have not seen any guidance on how to treat employees that work multiple roles, whether or not you have a separate employee line for each role that they work, or whether you choose their primary role, if there is a primary role, I'm not sure, but that's one that we can take back to the commission absolutely. For you all, so someone's putting it, yeah, sorry.
- Yeah, yep, and just saying, that's the end of our questions on 3:30.
- Thank you, thank you, everyone. Sorry, this was a very rushed one hour session, but hopefully, it's a useful start for you as you start to think about what time and resources it might take to look at analysis.
- [Alison] We've lost, Jen, right at that one.
- Am I back?
- [Alison] Thank you.
- Unless it was me that got lost, someone got lost there.
- [Alison] It's very much, that was great.
- Thank you, thanks, Allison. I just saw one other question about that. Someone is still confused, but I couldn't see the rest of it.
- That exactly, what type of data that we send to the commission. Is it the indicative reporting template, or is that fast to help us to analyse the information, or is it actually for submission?
- The lack of clarity there is just because you don't need to submit any data until 1st of September. And we're just unclear whether or not-
- December?
- 1st of December, and we're just unclear. It is unclear at this stage, whether or not the reporting platform will be built by then. If the reporting platform is not built, you will need to share your indicative reporting template. Not for publication, you don't need to publish it on your website, but you will need to include it as an annex to your Gender Equality Action Plan and share the indicative reporting template with the commission, not necessarily your analysis graphs and things that you do of that data. I hope that meet some of that confusion.
- Thank you so much.
- Thanks, everybody.
- Thanks.
Updated