- We are looking today at "Gender segregation within the workforce." We will be sharing PowerPoint slides with you. Jen, I believe is trying to get those out this afternoon, we're really keen to close those off today. And this recording hopefully should go out this afternoon as well. Next slide, thanks, Jen. Okay, so just a few notes on our ways of working. And for those of you who have been with us for the past five sessions against each indicator Q&A sessions, as well as the auditing, the sound of the session will appear very familiar. So bear with us for the first five minutes or so. But the facilitators that you have in the room today, myself, Kathy Oliver and Jen Branscombe, we're principal partners at GenderWorks Australia, we are not employees of the commission for gender equality. But we are on the panel of providers. So we are third party provider that support this what is commissioned currently to roll out training and development around workforce auditing. We also note as a way of working that whenever we talk about gender equality, that issues can arise to anyone at any time. So please make use of your employee assistance provider should you need to. And also on your screen currently are a couple of other support numbers, particularly around family violence. So 1800 Respect and Safe Steps. Jen and I warmly and enthusiastically encourage you to use the chat function. We love the chat function. For those of you who have been with us previously, we encourage any thought bubbles that come along to be posted into that chat function. Sometimes we'll pause and answer them. But others we'll hold till it's appropriate in the session, in case we're going to cover it already. Or in case, it's just a more appropriate moment towards the end of the session, potentially as well. We will note in a moment, what we will and won't be covering and the types of questions that we'll answer. But those that we can't answer we will take forward to the commission. As with each of the indicator sessions, we do collect those and forward those onto the commission for response. I do note that today's session is about analysing your workforce gendered segregation data. It is not about challenges that you may be experiencing in completing the template, or challenges in manipulating the data. But we will do our best to answer those questions that you bring forward to us. But this is really an important part in the process. When we start to think about how we'll move into our consultation and our measures and strategies, it's a step before that. Next slide, thanks, Jen. So that ties nicely into this slide. So just noting, I'm sure we're eagerly anticipating and waiting for version three of the Indicative Reporting Template. The commission is troubleshooting a few things in the background of that, and including privacy protocols and those types of things. It is due by the end of June, which is obviously next week. So keep your eye out on the commission's website for that is our recommendation. And I'm sure you're all very busy at the moment preparing for your extraction of your workforce data. And many organisations have their People Matter Survey out at the moment or their employee experience survey answers lots of things happening, where we're trying to support you in advance of having those results from both the workforce data and the employee experience. And to start to think about the types of questions you'll ask yourself from that data to then inform the consultation process. So many of you will be developing your consultation plans now and this will help you to prepare for that. In terms of responding and drafting your strategies and measures that is other an additional training that is being provided by the commission. And I know that those are well underway at the moment. Thanks, Jen. Okay, we've got an hour together 50 minutes left. So we've got about 25 to 30 minutes of content, and then the opportunity for you to ask all the burning questions that we have on gendered segregation within the workforce. So just noting, and you're probably well aware of this, at this point in the process, that you do have two types of data that will be available for your use under gender segregation. The first of which will be coming out of your Indicative Reporting Template, which is your workforce data. And there is one tab in that spreadsheet related to indicator seven, which is table 7.1. What differs to some of the other indicators is that it is not an additional tab within the spreadsheet for intersectional analysis around this particular indicator. The other form of data that you'll be looking at is your employee experience. And there are a range of questions mapped to indicator seven, which are very helpful in understanding the culture of the organisation and some of the other things that might be contributing to your results within your table of 7.1. So we do encourage you to have a look at that. If you do have a look at your employee experience table. The questions that are on the commission's website, sorry, you will be able to sort them according to the indicator at which they are currently mapped. We do recommend that you check back against that over coming weeks as that data is made available, particularly through People Matter, as there may be a shift, or additional mapping that takes place. So just being aware, there might be some updates is important. Okay, but let's move into the ANZSCO codes, which is really a way of understanding and classifying occupations and roles within an organisations to be able to group them together. And from that grouping, we can do some analysis to understand the particular trends in different work areas of your organisation. So it's a skills-based classification. And as you can see on your screen, there are eight groupings by occupation group. The first of which is manager then, we've got professionals, technicians, and trade workers. Community and personal service workers, clerical and administrative workers, sales workers, machinery operators and labourers. You can see on your slide, there is a link at the bottom of this particular slide and you'll be referred to these slides at the end of the session. If you'd like to do some further reading to understand the background, the historical context of the ANZSCO codes, you can do so there. But for the purposes of today, the most important thing to really understand is that we're putting our employees into particular groupings. And then we can analyse in this particular case through a gender lens to understand if there are particular parts of your organisation that are heavily segregated or dominated by one gender or another. Would you have a poll here? Have you got that ready, Jen?
- Yeah.
- Lovely. Okay, so it's a pretty simple and straightforward question. We know that there's some sectors who have been doing ANZSCO coding for some time, and for others, it is incredibly new. And I will note that, particularly for the local government sector, we have just had that guidance released. So I'm sure there's not really many who have been able to do that yet. So have you mapped your occupations? Yes, no, or I don't know. Okay. Lovely. Okay, so just over half of you haven't done it yet. And few more, I don't know, probably putting us around 65%, somewhere around there. That's fine. I do understand probably, there's a really high take up of local government at this particular session as well. But there will be others who haven't yet had the opportunity to map this either. And it's good to say that there's 35% of you who have already mapped them. If you've used them in previous years, for particular purposes, we'd love to hear about it. Any trials and tribulations, any workarounds that you've found in terms of making the process quicker, we'd really appreciate as we go through any commentary that you can provide. And you can offer that through the chat function, noting that for the vast majority of organisations under the Gender Equality Act, that this is really new. And there will be challenging moments in doing this classification process the first time, but this year really forms your baseline. And what we are expecting to see is this is another form of a data gap. So as we've talked about in every session, it is expected that organisations will have data gaps. And when we look at ANZSCO codes, it is expected that for some organisation, there'll be challenges in coding some classifications so that we will be trading as another data gap. So you'll be able to plan on how to improve that over the next couple of years. So you're not gonna be penalised if there are classifications that you have trouble with. Thanks, Jen. Okay, so just as a high level note, if you haven't delved into the spreadsheets, you'll definitely see these when you do. ANZSCO codes are made up of up to six digits, and where you place those within that classification system will depend on the numbers that you have at the front of that classification. So if you only got one classification at your number, that means you're operating at the highest group, so on the previous slide, managers were number one, sorry, all of those codes are represented starting with the number one. Then we go down just sub-major groups, minor, unit groups and occupations. Under the Gender Equality Act you are requested to currently off the Indicative Reporting Template, look at occupations by a six digit code, which gives you the most level of detail. Next slide, thanks, Jen. And this is an example from Census and Labour Force Survey. And it's really just to show you how the information might potentially be used. You'll see on the left hand side next to agriculture is four numbers. And so in this particular instance, they're reporting at the four digit code, which is the unit group, so agriculture, nursery and floriculture. In this particular one, you can see that they've disaggregated the data by males and females, and our data will differ slightly in that we will have men, women and people of self-identified gender. So it will be slightly different. And at this stage, we are anticipating that we will be reporting at a six digit level, so you'll have six digits instead of the four. And this is what...
- Oh, sorry, Kathy.
- Yeah, yeah, . We've got everything going. This is what the template actually looks like. And I'm sure you're all across this and have spent time delving into it and considering what you're gonna do with this information. So just to let you know that this is part of the single unit upload. So you will find your figures automatically populate in here, once you've done your coding in the back end of your system. Privacy protocols are being worked through. And Jen and I aren't aware yet of what those actually are. So we unfortunately can't guide you on those today. But they will protect people's privacy and information at this particular level. So as you can see, it goes down to an ANZSCO code of six. So for example, civil engineering is 312211. In this particular case, and the data that you would get would be the number of people in that classification of our three gender groupings. Thanks, Jen. All right. So there are guides available. And in good news, there is the guide available for the local government sector, spent a bit of time delving into it. It is downloadable from the commission's website, if you haven't had a chance to look at it, just be really conscious that when you open it up, it does open up. At the far right of the spreadsheet, there are additional tabs to the left that you may not be aware of which has guidance materials and notes. So when you first open it up, it kind of just looks like it's a spreadsheet with mapping. But there is additional guidance, if you tab to the left hand side, for example. In the Victorian public sector more broadly, there are additional guides for each of the industries listed above. ANZSCO codes on how to do that mapping and this specific to that particular type of organisation. This is it, if your organisation doesn't fall into these categories, this is the extent of the guidance that will be provided this year. So you are expected to map according to the high level ANZSCO code that is provided. Another thing to note here is you are expected to map your classifications according to someone's primary role or primary function. So we do know, for example, we've had other questions in the health sector, which we do take to the commission around if somebody say is a surgeon and they're also at a leadership level, which code do you map them against, and their primary role would be considered in that particular instance, to be their leadership role. That's the primary function that they're performing on a day-to-day basis. The other thing to note is I did mention data gaps. So there is a code which is 899913 at the very end. And this is where you put those roles that you can't classify elsewhere. So for example, in the local government sector, you're gonna find your school crossing supervisors in this particular classifications. Because at the moment, they don't map into any other sector. We will have any other classification. We would expect that to change over the next four to eight years as we continue to collect data. But it's just a reminder that this is the first time we've delved into this information in this particular way. So that will evolve over time. Next slide, thanks, Jen. The next one is we're starting to think about how we're going to form our analysis of the data that you're going to get out of your templates. So why does gender segregation matter? And for many of you, this might be new news, this will be things that you're already conscious of. And what this process is actually allowing you to do is have the evidence-based to have these conversations. For others of you who haven't worked in the gendered space or haven't been analysing your workforce data by gender before some of it might be a little bit newer. So we do know that shifting gender segregated workforces is incredibly challenging, it's incredibly complex. There are a lot of barriers that are in place, you can't just walk into a workforce and expect to change things overnight to ensure that women, men and people, who are gender diverse represented equitably. We know that over time, even with efforts unless there are measures and strategies and resourcing put into place that it is incredibly challenging. Gender segregation is harmful to people and to organisations. It basically follows along the same lines of gender inequality within our society. And it looks at the ways in which we inadvertently organise and think about the ways women or men do work within our society as well. So it's really condoning those stereotypes but within a workplace setting. We know that the experiences in gender segregated workplaces are really different. So for example, in a male dominated workplace, we know that more men tend to work full time. We know they tend to work longer hours, which are barriers to men taking on caring roles in their families, and community roles. And we know that lack of flexibility is a huge issue as well in male dominated workplaces. And it is really challenging to change because we hear a lot in this space about the way in which work is organised, and those barriers can be overcome, but we've really got to look at it through a different lens. Overall, we know that female dominated industries are paid less, as well, so often that follows caring roles or administrative roles. And we do know that despite best efforts and intentions around gender equality in Victoria in Australia more broadly, and a perception that things are changing, that actually when you look at the workplace gender equality agency's data on their website, and I encourage you to use that when you think about your case for change, that it actually has increased the segregation within our workforces. So we're seeing a female dominated workforces become more entrenched in gender inequality in the sense of more women, and less men be represented in certain fields. So I'd encourage you to have a look at your particular field if there's data for that on the WGA or use it as a basis to help to build your case about why it is so important that we put measures and strategies and resourcing into place. Thanks, Jen. So some really general comments around analysing your workforce data. As with everything, these are the same principles we've used across all of the indicators that we've delivered sessions on. So always desegregate by gender, it's your first point of call. This is the Gender Equality Act, and we are contributing to gender equality across Victoria. If we don't ask the questions about the different experiences of women, men and gender diverse people, then we can't actually start to unpack why that's happening, or what the implications or causes of that, resulting or what strategies or measures we should put into place. And additionally, where possible, and where data exists to analyse it through intersectional factors as well. Next, Jen. All right, so specifically, in regards to indicator seven, what would I be looking for? I'd be really looking for any stock differences, especially to begin with. We know workforces is a segregated in Australia and in Victoria. And it won't necessarily be a small difference, it's going to be a big job in every organisation to address this particular issue. And in some occupations bigger than others. In terms of there'll be challenges around talent pool, who's trained in the field, how you access people of different genders, and other organisations have long term tenure, for example. So there's very little turnover and limited opportunity for truly changing your workforce composition. So I'd be starting with those areas that have the starkest difference in an organisation and thinking about which ones are already dominated by women. So you'll probably see them in the stereotypical roles around administration, or caring in particular. But you'll probably see them in other pockets within organisations too. Organisations seem to follow trends, even if it's for a period of time, for example, the people and culture team might be heavily dominated for women for a period of time, or heavily dominated by men, and it can shift and change in those particular areas. And in converse, what is dominated by men? Are we seeing it follow traditional gender norms and societal norms as well? So we're seeing engineering heavily dominated by men, trades roles and technical roles, as well as leadership as well. So obviously, leadership's when we talked about indicator one, but also in terms of those management and professional roles. Are we seeing men in those particular dominated too? And we do know that we're collecting this data for people of self-described gender as well, gender diverse people. If the privacy thresholds allow you to look at this, are there some occupations with higher representation or representation that we can in fact, think about and analyse? And if we're seeing particular teams, and occupations that have a higher level of those people identified there, this may be a good thing. This may be because we have a really positive team culture within that particular work area. And there might be other intersectional factors to consider there as well. Thanks, Jen. All right, so you've got a secondary piece of data, which is your employee experience data and we just wanna note that the ANZSCO codes aren't going to be your be all and end all when it comes to looking at indicator seven and workforce gender and segregation. What we'll do is tell you if there's a difference between particular occupations. You will absolutely need to delve deeper into your other data that you have available to understand a little bit more around the cultural elements that are contributing to your organisation. I do know that the employee experience data is provided at an organisational level. So it's helpful in understanding and having conversations and maybe flagging areas for conversation when you come to do your consultation with your heavily segregated workforces. But it doesn't tell you about the culture of a particular team or exactly what's happening in a work area. What we'll do is tell you about the different experiences of women, men and gender diverse people across your organisation in regards to these particular questions. And again, you'll be able to look at these three intersectional factors where the data exists as well. So for example, we're looking at questions around negative experiences of bullying, which over the past 12 months, people will be asked how they experienced it, what type? Was it once off? Was it on a repeated weekly, monthly? Who was the perpetrator or the alleged perpetrator who committed that offence? What was your response as an individual? So for example, did you make a complaint? And if you did make a complaint, what was your satisfaction? So you can delve into each of those questions through a gender lens as well to see did women and men have a different satisfaction level when it came to complaints? There is a question around the fair allocation of work, which really speaks to when we see heavily segregated areas, we often see different perceptions in the way that work is delivered and shared out between people of different genders. Is that active support for workplace diversity and inclusion? Through other surveys and support Jen and I have provided, we have seen differences for genders that aren't highly represented within a work group not being part of conversations. Were not being included, for example, and really experiencing discrimination. But those people who were the majority cohort within that group thought it was fine. They were part of the mainstream culture component of the group, they are part of the jokes. They are part of the conversations. And so there was a real difference that we can see there sometimes, too. And safety climate, so do we feel safe culturally at work? And the final one there is quite an interesting one is, and it's written in the negative. So just be really careful when you are handling this question in your employee experience. Data general, I have to keep having conversations about working out exactly what the data is telling us. The question is written as people in my work group reject others for being different? So if you're part of a group that has been rejected for being different, you are obviously much more likely to notice it, as well as employees with high levels of empathy and those kinds of things as well. So you might see different gendered results from that. All right, sorry, analysing your experience, I've probably gone over most of these, but I'll just check in to make sure that I have caught these questions as we've gone. So these are the kinds of questions you might be asking. And I haven't put key questions for each of them. Because there's quite a number of questions. But so for example, do people of different genders believe that their work group rejects people for being different? Cultural safety, I think I've gone through all of these questions. On to the next one, thanks, Jen. Alright, so there are limitations with indicator seven. And it's really important to know that the data does not tell you the why. And this is where your case of change becomes really important in your understanding about the way in which workforces that are segregated experience employment, and also around a little bit of a robust understanding about gender inequality and exclusion more broadly, as well until really thought through some of those issues. What it will do is flag that there are differences within your organization's and then it'll be your consultation process that needs to unpack what that actually looks like and what the lived experience of that workplace is. It doesn't tell you what the culture is, it doesn't tell you the role of leadership with changing this or in responding to this or leading on these particular issues. There might be great initiatives and programmes in place that just aren't hitting the mark, or there may be no leadership support at all. It may be that every time you recruit for a role within a segregated work area, that we justify the same gendered person being recruited over and over again. So it doesn't tell you what activities or an issues are taking place. It doesn't tell you about the talent pool that's coming through in this particular field. Are there people in universities and types? Do we have training shifts that have gender equality principles, underpinning them? Do we have a workforce that doesn't turn over? So for example, if we only have one role, are we gonna put one person of a different gender into that team? What is the safety of doing that? And this is where when you go through your consultation process, your messages and strategies will really come into play. So for example, you might be wanting to think about things like two ups. If you have a vacancy within agenda team, do you actually put two people within a different gender into that team? But what other cultural aspects will you do at the same time? How will you ensure their safety? How do you work with the existing team to not experience backlash and resistance and think that they're only being employed because of their agenda? Or that, how do we talk about the culture within that team and the jokes or the innuendo or the way in which work is allocated? So there's a lot of work that will go on in the background, to be able to challenge and changes safely. It doesn't talk to you about the HR practises, it doesn't help you to examine yet where you recruit, you continually going down the same recruitment channels. It doesn't tell you if your recruitment forms are actually locking certain people out before you even begin. And it doesn't tell you if there are components of the job, which some genders may not have the skills or the professional qualifications for, but aren't actually needed for the role. And we could look at changing those. So there are conversations that you can have as well. And just noting that the backlash one will be significant if this is the first time that you've delved into this. And this is where it actually connects into leadership, really heavily to and requires strong leadership. And the final one is it doesn't tell you the cost of inaction. So we know that from what I talked about earlier that shifting these cultures is really time consuming and limited. And in certain areas, we're seeing more entrenchment of gendered patterns within workforces. So if we do nothing in four years, we'll either have the same workforce we have now, or we'll have it further entrenched and innate and in 12 years time. So there's some of the ways you can frame your conversations as you start to talk to leadership as well about what might need to take place. A little bit of a case study for the next five minutes or so and then we'll delve into the 16 or 20 questions that I can see coming through the chat function that I'm hoping Jen is helping to answer with. And so we've done a little bit of a made up organisation. So this is organisation A. And this might be one way you can report your data, just noting that you won't be reporting a CEO necessarily in this particular way, because your privacy protocols won't allow it. I did leave a CEO here, mainly because in this particular instance, the CEO is female. And I just really wanted to make the point, that if the CEOs gender doesn't necessarily lead to a gender equitable organisation. We can have a male or a female or someone who is self-described gender, and still have an inequitable organisation, and the same for any leadership level, across any organisation. So in this particular organisation, we can see some what I would consider some flags for further investigation from my workforce data. I'd be looking into my gardeners in particular with 68%, I think it was who identify as male, and we have close to 60% is building inspectors and a little bit closer together in terms of numbers of women and men around OH and S offices. So we're looking sort of around the 55, 45% mark, with the way that's broken up. So for me, if I had a big organisation and lots of areas to investigate, I'd be going for those two in the middle there to ask some questions about why that gender difference exists. And to think about it a little bit more closely. And one way I would be doing that would be to start to look at my employee experience data. Jen, do you wanna go on to the next slide? Thanks. Okay, so these were two that we pulled out from the employee experience results that we thought really were connected to people's experiences within their work team potentially, noting again, that this doesn't tell you about a specific work team, but in fact tells you about the organisation as a whole. But the results are fairly starkly different, that they're useful, potentially to raise some of these in consultation sessions with particular work groups. So for example, you might be wanting to look at the results of this and have some informed discussions with gardeners of all genders to understand why there is such a difference between so for that top question, why there's two different understandings around people in my work group often reject others for being different. So the way this data and you don't really need to understand the data or the tables, it's more there as an example and you will be provided with a slider if you do wanna have a closer look at them. But the top bar is women and the second bar in blue is men. So women are red and men are blue. And what this is telling us in this particular instance, is that 35% of women agree that people in their work group reject others for being different. This is a comparison of 10% for men. And to me, the difference in those two data results is what is interesting and what is really important to start to unpack. It doesn't necessarily tell us exactly why we can probably make some inferences and some educated guesses that probably more women have had negative experiences or friends or peers who have had negative experiences or more aware of it. And in this particular work group, men have probably had less. Again, the same kind of information is being delivered through the second question, which is in my work group, work is allocated regardless of gender. So 50% or so of women agree that work is allocated fairly, which means that 50% either don't know or disagree. So half of the organisation. In contrast, for this particular one is that temp or 25% of men... Jen, can I just check on that one?
- Yep, sorry, I think that's an error in the description. It's 75%, you're correct, looking at the graph, but I think that 10% might be an error in the slide. Look at the right hand side, I can fix that no worries, when we share it.
- Thanks, Jen. So the difference there is in compared to 50% of women thinking that it's fairly allocated, 75% of men think it's fairly allocated. So again, we're just saying a difference is statistically significant, between women's and men's experiences on this particular question, and we're not seeing any data from people who self-identify gender, because there weren't the numbers to do that within privacy protocols within this particular survey. And also another way you could also start to look at this at the organisation level is to start to examine through additional cohort. So for example, does this differ between age groups or people who are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, and across the full range of intersectional factors where you have the data available. And you might see different trends across different groups. But often, if we are seeing women and men experiencing these differently, then we'll also be seeing them experience differently across the intersection of groups as well. And then where we'd be going to from there is to use this information to inform our focus groups. Do you wanna go onto the next slide, Jen? Thank you. So, for example, you can think about who you'd be consulting with. So in this particular example, you might do some focus groups with your gardeners, if you've got a big group of gardeners, you might do them as a single cohort, or if they're part of a broader workforce of outdoor workers, you might do those employees in a broader group. I'd be wanting to think about safety protocols, to me, that evidence of that different workforce experiences suggests that I'd be actually taking women and men into different consultation groups to improve and encourage safety and freedom of discussion. We'll find it more restrained if you do it in a mixed group. And I'd also be offering individual interviews with people because if their experiences is negative, they might not feel like they can talk in front of other people at all. And I'd be considering using someone external to the organisation, if you think those conversations could be potentially fairly sensitive as well. Particularly, if this is the first opportunity those employees have ever had to raise these issues, as well. So some of the questions you'd be wanting to ask them is to explore why they think it's gendered. So in the example of the gardener, it might be because of the way we recruit, it might be because of the technical skills that we're acquiring. And the local TAFE only predominantly has taken men over the past two generations. It might be that there's been no shift in that team in the last five years. And in fact, we haven't actually recruited, sorts have remained very stagnant and the status quo is maintained. There's all sorts of different reasons. It might be that women have come into that team and left as well, so you might find out that information as well through this consultation process, as well. So we also would be interested in understanding what men's experiences are in this particular team too or this particular work area. And different men will have different experiences. So we can't say that just because men are in the majority, that they all have the same lived experience within that team. We do hear very different stories from people within a work team as well, which is completely obviously unnatural. And it doesn't tell us it might be an opportunity to explore the role of leadership as well within this particular team too. So how a lead is supporting the status quo to be maintained, or how are they challenging it as well. And then the other set of consultation I'd be looking at and this is my final slide before we move into questions. Next one, Jen. I'm busy answering questions I can see. So I've been really thinking about what level of leadership influences the decisions and the composition of this team over time. And my sense with this is there is a very strong senior leadership response that's required to shift gender segregation within an organisation. As I've mentioned a few times, it's hard and it's entrenched. But there's also a really important role for localised leadership as well. So I'll be using this information to question, what is the vision for our agenda areas of this particular organisation in for eight and 12 years? What do we envisage for intersectional identity more broadly, across the organisation? What are the barriers? So leaders are looking at the barriers in terms of financial and recruitment and those kinds of things, but they also live on the culture as well. So they play an important role in acknowledging that there is a culture that may be disadvantages, and harmful to some people when they come into those particular teams that have very strong team-based cultures and rhythms and those kinds of things. And really, how are we gonna manage the backlash and resistance? So noting that it's a full scope of backlash and resistance that can happen when we do start to change the composition of work teams. What is the leadership response in preparation in that particular space? Because otherwise, it's the frontline staff who are making those changes, who often are very close to those gender segregated areas, whether it's a personal relationship or a professional relationship that enables that work to take place. And they're becoming the conduit between a very rapid change, or significant change or challenging change, that people really struggle with. So there's a lot of cultural conversations that need to take place as well. So ultimately, this is a challenging indicator, I think, in some ways, but one that is incredibly important in terms of the way in which our workplaces either reinforce or challenge gender stereotypes across Victoria. It's an important piece of the puzzle in creating gender equality in our workforces. And it's something that needs really careful thought, planning and analysis. But I think we're at an exciting starting point in time with this particular indicator. And this gives us a really good motivation and legislative framework to make some of these changes as well. So it's time to open the floor to questions. Jen, do you wanna start or do you want... I'm happy to hear verbal questions as well.
- I think that most of the questions, I'm just going back through the chat, anyone who wants to jump off and ask a question verbally, please do while I'm doing that. Most of the questions I think we've been able to respond in the chat or other members of the group have been able to respond. I think one outstanding question is just how do we treat... Particularly how do we treat for secondment roles? Should we map their substantive role? Or this secondment role in terms of ANZSCO? I'm not sure in your conversations with Enya, are you have gotten from that Kathy?
- No, but my guess is it's just your secondment role, because he's someone else sitting in this substantive position and would be mapped to that role at that particular time. I think it would be where you're sitting on June 30, wouldn't it? We can take that for, like for full clarification. But that would be my instinct on that particular one. Unless someone, Matt did you have something to add there?
- I was just trying to say I caught up with Enya, had a conversation with her earlier in the week and I asked this specific question.
- Yeah, thanks.
- And the decision that we had made it although it wasn't 100%, clear, the decision I've made for the City of Melbourne, is that we'll be trading based on substantive roles given that the higher duties, temp transfers, all that sort of stuff, data will then overlay it. For the ANZSCO codes, we are going back to this substantive position. And I think taking away from the conversation with Enya was there is no hard and fast way on dealing with that. But I think just making note of which way you cut the data that would then inform the way that it's interpreted, if that makes sense once the analysis is done.
- Awesome, thanks, Matt. Appreciate that. And I think that's a really important note and same from the conversations that we've had with Enya as well is that we're all figuring this out this year. And we've got a really good framework to base it on. But there will be changes and learning to come over the next couple of years. And to treat the things you can't figure out properly and fully as data gaps that we will improve on over the next two years. So I do definitely wanna stress that. Something else to add that?
- Yeah, I was just gonna say that, based on the conversation where, because we are still figuring it out. I think it was just important to make note of where we grab that data from, and see what the analysis provides us with that data and determine if it's right. And so even if it is part of an action going, we wanna adjust the way that our data is captured in future ways, because it doesn't tell the story of the information that we need. So I think it's kind of making a determination on the best way to do it for you at that point in time. Keeping that lens in mind, yeah.
- Yeah, great. And at the end of the day, what we're wanting to do is work out where we've got gender segregation, and what we're gonna do with it, and how we're gonna challenge that. So yeah, it's a really important note to just be able to map that and understand where that's been recorded, because we're probably gonna forget in two years time. Any other questions or what else?
- There's been a bit of a conversation in the chat just about consultation. So when you Kathy, were running through the kinds of things you might unpack in consultation on this indicator, there was a couple of questions about how consultation should be focused, should it be focused on the Y or should it be focused on strategies and measures? And then I was just mentioning in the chat that originally, there was a recommendation for two rounds of consultations. One on the Y, one on the strategies and measures, but it's likely that a hybrid we'll see the mix of that because of the tight timeframes. And then there's if people wanna take a look in the chat, there's a few responses on generally people are thinking of hybrid consultations in that tight timeframe. But there's a bit of chat there if people wanna have a look at that, if you're not sure.
- Yeah, that all sounds fairly reasonable. And I mean, there's many ways of doing it. But my sense is the more information that you have internally through your case for change, and why you're doing this work, and what some of the barriers and enablers might be. So you've gotta a bit of an evidence-based going into consultations. You can do a bit of sense checking almost rather than starting from scratch to support you to do that more efficiently, potentially. Some of these work areas, though, in our experience in running these kinds of consultations, when it's the first time they've ever talked about gender segregation, and what it means to be a woman or a man in a team, where they feel like they're having a different experience, people need the opportunity to talk about the impacts of that before they can even really think about what they're going to do about it because they need that validated almost that they have been having agenda to experience within that team. And that that matters, and that there is a space for that conversation to happen too. But it doesn't all have to happen through a consultation process too, this might be something that you build into your measures and strategies. Moving forward over the next four years to do in greater depth in year one, for example, is to really understand and analyse and work with these particular teams in a really meaningful way. Because it is such a challenging area to change.
- And there's just a couple of other questions that have come up. One I can just quickly answer to confirm just relating to submission of data, when's the data due? You don't need to actually submit any data until you submit your Gender Equality Action Plan on the first of December. The data is that you're extracting is based on end of June, Nebraska, as you said in the chat, and that's when you'll start analysing but no requirement to submit anything to the commission. And you don't need to submit your analysis to the commission at all. If you don't, that's not part of your Gender Equality Action Plan. First of December, you just will need to submit your data sets and your Gender Equality Action Plan. And then there's a couple of questions which I might read out for you, Kathy, just related to just looking at recommendations. So one small organisation of only 38 ongoing staff who will respond to people matter. Is there anything in particular to be thinking about in terms of a valid process? And then a question about recommending the focus of consultation.
- You don't think, look the one with 38 is challenging. And I'm not knowing the gender composition or the kind of any segregation that you might have in your workforce plus consultation more broadly. I guess you're probably not just thinking about it in terms of indicator seven. Although that's been the focus of today. I'd be definitely looking at safety as my number one priority in that consultation process. And optional opt in. The other thing to think about is I'd be looking at doing and the same for other organisations, too, I'd be looking at doing some kind of online consultation that's optional too around identifying measures and strategies, or number one barrier, or those kinds of things, keeping it very small maximum five to 10 questions, those kinds of things. But I'd also be looking at providing the opportunity to face to face consultation. I'd be potentially thinking about using someone external in such a small organisation, because the relationships are so close. And particularly, I'd be looking to offer, as I mentioned before, one on one interviews as an option for people to opt into if they don't feel comfortable and safe to do through a focus group. And I'd be looking at separating people of different genders or in those focus groups as well. And that doesn't need to be... Like it doesn't need to be an all day thing. You can look at a lot of the indicators together and get a lot of great information from people as well.
- And I think I would just probably the only thing I'd add to that is just probably be aware going into it and communicate with the staff going into it. Just be aware of the limitations of your analysis, it may be possible to be able to report back to your staff on disaggregated data from your People Matter Survey, for example, you will need to have at least 10 men and at least 10 women responding to be able to disaggregate by gender. So it may be possible, I don't know what your organisation makeup is. But it may be possible you don't get those 10 men responding, which means you can only provide back to your organisation following privacy protocols, aggregate organisational experience data. So it's just useful to be aware of that going into it. All those privacy things, I just mentioned that in the survey practise note on the commission's audit page.
- And my other comment would be at the end of the day, managing expectations as well, that this isn't the end of the conversation. This is purely the beginning of a conversation. And the purpose is to develop measures and strategies to create a change that you'll demonstrate over four years. So it's the very first touch point... Well, it's not the very first touch by pencil very early on touchpoint. And most early on personalised touch point where people feel like they can have their say. But managing those expectations is important.
- And someone's just asked the question, do you know if there's a minimum response for People Matter Survey? I'm pretty sure but check once I say this, please do check in the practise note on the audit page of the commission's website. It's not a percentage engagement, it's minimum 30 responses for total. And then minimum 10 from each gender or the genders you're able to disaggregate by to be able to report back to your staff. But I'm not... Please do check that 30 in the practise note, but I think that's the number.
- And just noting to reassure people that we are hearing of low response rates more broadly. And I check in with others in your sector as well about what they're getting. Because it might reassure you that your response rate is sort of on par obviously that went out during COVID restrictions and a whole lot of other stuff going on across the state.
- Thanks, Natasha. Natasha has just confirmed it is 30 in the chat. And Joe's asked the question of this spreadsheet thresholds if it's 10 men and women? Not confirmed, we need to wait until we see version three of the Indicative Reporting Template when that comes out. We're not clear yet if it's the same 10 or not. And then someone has asked about, is there a community of practise or the like for organisations to chat? I know there are in some sectors. Feel free to share in the chat now if you want to ask about particular sector, share emails or anything like that. The commission have talked about looking at them, but it's not a priority at this stage, their priority is really just focusing on getting all of the guidance ready and out the door by 30 June.
- Great questions there, Joe.
- I'm just going back... I'm going back come here, please come after.... I have a question Denisha here. I'm just wondering what the expectation is on casuals, in terms of analysis. Do we map it as a separate unit in terms of the reporting line to MD and then we analyse it separately or how is that expected to be done?
- Is this in specific relation to indicator seven or is it in relation to all the indicators comprehensively?
- All the indicators comprehensively.
- So casuals are mapped under mode of employment, which will go into your single unit upload.
- That's right, yeah. And then, is there an expectation that we sort of analyse it separately just using the ANZSCO codes as well, or how is that?
- Not at this point is my understanding. But if you're wanting to add an additional layer, because that is such an important part of the conversation, especially with highly feminised workforces. You might wanna do that as part of your consultation process around measures and strategies. But I don't believe you're required under the Act to do that, that's for you recording too, yeah. But it's such a good question and I think that will potentially form part of the compositions in future years about how we consider some of that as we start to try to transform and understand the impacts of that casualization.
- Thank you.
- [Rita] I'm Rita here, I was just continuing with the casual workforce, instead of just making a work spreadsheet and see how it works. So this is not just a seven indicator, I'm talking about the others. So when this is salaries FTE, and how are we gonna manage those things? Because they're all an hourly page or, you know what I mean? There is no particular base salary for them. So I didn't attend those courses, I was just gonna ask if it is okay. This doesn't completely fully answer your question. But if you do take a look in the audit guide, I don't have it open in front of me, sorry, at the moment. But when you're looking at those salary measures, there is guidance to calculate figures for casuals, based on the last pay period of 2021. So if you take a look in there, even if you just open the audit guide and do a Ctrl F search for casual, casual is only mentioned a few times, and there is a couple of sentences, specifically guiding you to look at for any of your remuneration salary calculations for casuals, based on that final fortnight of the... Final pay period of 2021. There's been a couple of questions that have come up things like there's a public holiday in that pay period. So that's gonna skew casual data. But at this stage, the guidance is used that final pay period of 2021, for any casuals for those kind of calculations.
- [Rita] And one more question with the level this indicator seven, is it something related to the level an organisation? For example, CEO is zero, and the next level is minus one and minus two, all those things. And then I think the code is similar to that, is there any link between that or it's completed created a separate thing?
- You mean, so the classification mapping you need to do in your unit... So for each employee in your unit level upload, which is that full spreadsheet, you need to include a classification map, which you'll do based on potentially your reporting level to CEO, or the hierarchy that makes sense in your organisation. And ANZSCO mapping sits separately. So that ANZSCO mapping is based on Australia wide ABS occupational mapping those codes. And then you might find that there is some cross comparative analysis, but the process of mapping classification and the process of mapping ANZSCO codes two completely separate processes.
- [Rita] The reason I asked is I think with the other survey which I did few years back and something exists. I mean, I did that separately, but then when you actually upload it, it didn't matter because it's not matching, it is linked. There were so many stuff. So thank you so much.
- That's okay. And I would say that I know that the commission is troubleshooting the self-population, auto-population in the spreadsheet. So when the new version comes out next week, if you populate it, you should. The aim is that there'll be no kinks like that, you will see the automatically populated tabs for each of your indicators.
- [Rita] Perfect, thank you.
- And I'm just noting all the steps coming through for the People Matter Survey. Thank you, everyone, that's really helpful. I think for people we'll be able to get a sense of where other organisations are at. Any other questions before we got time for one more, Jen? 4:58.
- I ain't seeing any. There's one question just related to someone asked regarding when the analysis guide will come out. That's the one we're working on. The draught is going to the commission by the end of this month. Over the next couple of days, we will need to make updates based on version three of the Indicative Reporting Template just to make sure they match. So it won't come out, I imagine from the commission until early July at the earliest. If you do want to, though, have any part in taking a look at the draught and providing feedback and comment, please do feel free to email me or us at auditing@genderworks.com.au. And thanks to those who have emailed already, we have received a few. We will be in touch with just some timelines about when you might see a draught. I don't think there's any other questions that we...
- I just had one last comment if I can. I can't recall what the slide was that you had up Kathy earlier, but it was around the one with the CEO that was a female CEO with the graphs. One thing that we've planned to do based on our preliminary data cut is produced those sorts of graphs, the ANZSCO codes based on raw numbers, as well as percentages to understand, I guess, the impact in relation to each other of 100% versus 0% when there's three people on the team. Obviously, that gives you a certain I guess it tells you a certain story, but then also looking at the raw numbers. So understanding if it's three people versus zero, or 100% versus zero is very different if there's 100 people in that category. So that was one of the adjustments we've made in our preliminary templates is to cut that data by percentage as well as the raw value to look at it in relation to each other so it might help.
- Yeah, great advice. Thanks, Matt. That's a good idea.
- Congratulations, puffing Billy, you're there at almost 50%. There's lots of chat in the chat.
- Natasha's just put 48%, that's amazing. And not to say there are huge challenges. So if you're sitting much lower than that, please don't feel anything. But you're doing your best under very, very difficult circumstances right now. Best laid plans from a lot of organisations to go out handing out chocolates and have conversations and give out QR codes as people do things. And so we do appreciate that there are a lot of challenges for you at the moment. And my comment is you can build on it for next time. In four years, hopefully we won't be operating in it, it will be in a very different context is obviously the ideal. So I will close this off and on behalf of Jen and I, we've absolutely loved delivering these sessions. And we hope you've gotten something useful out of it. We'd love to hear feedback. So feel free to drop us an email at some point if you've got anything you'd like to share with us. I guess one final comment is it's a really challenging time of year you're all hitting interview, we're hitting payroll, we're hitting the nuts and bolts of filling out Indicative Reporting Templates and analysis. At the end of the day, this is year one, and we are creating gender equality in the state of Victoria, we are ahead of the rest of the country. We're doing this because it's the right thing to do. And because we will create a different future for women and gender diverse people in this state. And I'm really excited about that. Once we can get through these hump and get those Gender Equality Action Plans submitted and we can spend the rest of December lounging around in the sunshine. But until then take care and we look forward to checking in and chatting to all of your various points along the way. So thanks, everyone.
- [Rita] Thank you.
- Thank you.
Updated