Review of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 Consultation Report
- Previous: 4 Barriers to achieving equality for women in the workplace
- Next: 6 What works to achieve equal employment opportunity for women
5 Effectiveness of existing equal opportunity for women framework
This section examines consultation findings relating to the contribution that the EOWW Act and EOWA have made to increasing women's employment opportunities and advancing women's equality in the workplace. It includes a discussion of the role that the EOWW Act and EOWA have in gathering and reporting on workplace data. It also considers the perceived effectiveness of the existing institutional arrangements in delivering equal opportunity for women.
5.1 EOWW Act
5.1.1 Coverage of the Act
Discussion of the coverage of the EOWW Act was relatively extensive throughout consultation activities. The discussion highlighted a general dissatisfaction with the current coverage of the Act.
Of all submissions received, 37 percent (47 submissions) commented that they believed that the current coverage of the EOWW Act was inappropriate and nine percent thought it is appropriate. The vast majority of submissions that considered the coverage of the EOWW Act to be inappropriate indicated that expanded coverage would be more appropriate, including to cover smaller organisations and government entities. Only one submission expressed the view that the coverage of the EOWW Act should be reduced. This is discussed further in section 7.
The HRLRC considers that the current coverage of the EOWW Act limits its effectiveness, as discrimination is clearly an issue in any sized business...;The promotion of equal opportunity for women in the workplace would be enhanced if the requirements and obligations for all organisations, whether in the public or private sector, were streamlined. At present, there are significant differences between the requirements imposed not only on the public and private sector, but also the public sector in different jurisdictions. There is also an argument, that as the government acts as a role model for best practice to other organisations, that more stringent requirements be imposed. In order to facilitate this, it is suggested that as a minimum, the same standards should be imposed across all employers
(Submission, Human Rights Law Resource Centre Ltd)
[ top ]
In their submission, James Cook University stated that 'the lack of coverage for smaller organizations (fewer than 100 employees) and the lack of contact by those small organizations, particularly in regional areas, with those organizations which are required to be compliant' represents an obstacle that may impede further progress towards equal employment opportunity within organisations and in Australia generally.
The exemption of the Commonwealth public sector from reporting to EOWA was also raised at the roundtables as a concern. In particular, participants questioned this exemption in light of the size of the Commonwealth public sector workforce.
5.1.2 Development of workplace programs
The consultation process identified that there was general support for the EOWW Act requirement that employers develop workplace programs to prevent discrimination and achieve equal employment opportunity for women. However, overall, the effectiveness of the workplace programs in achieving improved outcomes for women in the workplace was widely questioned.
Some submissions indicated that employers thought that workplace programs had contributed to improved employment opportunities for women within reporting organisations. Of the submissions received, 20 percent indicated that workplace programs had contributed to outcomes and eight percent indicated that they had not. With respect to whether the EOWW Act's requirements regarding the content of workplace programs are useful and appropriate, 23 percent of public submissions received indicated the requirements are not useful and appropriate and 13 percent indicated that they are useful and appropriate.
The requirement to develop reports under the EOWW Act has provided reporting organisations with the underlying data to support organisational change. The reporting structure and the legislation that underpins it have been very important in legitimising an organisational function/role dedicated to gender and diversity in the workplace.
(Interview, Juliet Bourke, Chair Equal Employment Opportunity Network of Australasia)
...; The analytical and evaluation activities called for by the legislation demand a level of attention from employers that has proved hard to sustain over time, particularly in organisations with overstretched human resource staff. Analysis can become perfunctory ...;in many cases the reporting of actions suggests that they are being retrofitted into a largely notional equal opportunity program.
(Submission, EOWA)
[ top ]
The link between program development and reporting was highlighted at the Melbourne roundtable where participants noted that the planning and reporting regime did not support development of evidence-based programs. Some stakeholders who were interviewed also expressed dissatisfaction with the rigour of the workforce analysis that is meant to inform workplace programs, particularly in relation to pay data.
We have never used the reports when looking at issues inside particular companies or representing particular employees. We have not found them to be a helpful form of information as there is little detail and a lot of rhetoric. In addition most of the employers we cover have less than 100 employees so they don't need to compile reports..
(Interview, Louise Tarrant, Katherine Whitty and Elaine Hudson, Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union)
Some submissions and interviewees also raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of the feedback on the workplace programs and reports provided by EOWA.
EOWA has done a good job with the limited resources that it has and its people work well and they work very hard. However EOWA's approach of reviewing reports and providing feedback is superficial and has very limited impact. They are usually 5 or 10 minute conversations and there is no framework to them. The approach is at the discretion of the consultant and often they do not 'tell it straight' and the feedback is too soft.
(Interview, Philippa Hall)
There is a lack of guidance in the EOWW Act in terms of specifying a standard on the amount of information that should be provided in an employer's analysis of their workplace in determining EO issues, or the extent to which the Agency can direct an employer to take action.
(Submission, EOWA)
[ top ]
In the survey of reporting organisations, 46 percent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the requirement under the EOWW Act to develop a workplace program has had a positive effect on the development of equal employment opportunity initiatives in their workplace. Thirty-two percent neither agreed nor disagreed, and 21 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.
The level of support that reporting organisations indicated for the requirement to develop a workplace program through the survey correlated with the compliance level of the organisation55. Organisations with the highest level of compliance were more likely to agree that the requirement under the EOWW Act to develop a Workplace Program has had a positive influence on the development of equal employment opportunity initiatives for women (44 percent agree, 9 percent disagree).The level of agreement fell with compliance level. Organisations that were moderately compliant agreed 39 percent and disagreed 15 percent, whilst marginally compliant respondents agreed 30 percent and disagreed 19 percent.
Across all categories, responses to the employee survey indicated that a significant number of employees were not aware of employee involvement in developing (35 percent) and evaluating (40 percent) workplace programs. The results from the employee survey show that female employees were more likely to indicate that employees were not involved in the development of strategies relating to equal opportunity and employment for women (33 percent) or that they did not know whether employees were consulted (35 percent). Male respondents more often indicated that employees were involved in the development of these strategies (49 percent). This disparity between male and female employees was also reflected in the responses regarding evaluation of the equal opportunity strategies.
[ top ]
5.1.3 Reporting to EOWA
Mixed responses were received across consultation activities in relation to the effectiveness of the EOWW Act's reporting requirement. The responses to the reporting organisation survey indicate that, overall, the EOWW Act requirement that employers prepare and submit a report to EOWA has had a positive influence on the development of equal opportunity initiatives for women. However, many respondents indicated that changes are required to improve the effectiveness of the reporting process. A recurring theme arising from the consultations was that reporting was process, rather than outcomes, driven and, overall, largely ineffective in improving employment outcomes for women. There also appear to be low levels of employee consultation and involvement in the development of reports to EOWA.
Ten percent of submissions attributed some of the EOWW Act's contribution to improving women's employment opportunities to EOWA reporting. However, the submissions lacked consensus on the utility of reporting requirements to organisations with 13 percent saying that they were very useful, 15 percent moderately useful and 13 percent not useful.
The current reporting arrangements are inconsistent, discursive and subject to evasion.... One could suggest that the lack of quality and comprehensive reporting and the failure to properly administer these requirements has not encouraged employers to take their obligations seriously...; The reports do not contain the information required to make any analysis or form any clear picture of equal opportunity or pay equity in large organisations...;
(Submission, Community and Public Sector Union - State Public Services Federation Group)
[ top ]
Submissions were also neutral on the issue of the reporting cycle, with 14 percent of submissions agreeing that reporting times were optimal and 15 percent saying that they were not. Of those that did not see the reporting timeframe as being optimal, the majority suggested that it should be extended. This is discussed further in section 7.
Annual reporting is too frequent. As well as having implications for company resources, the short time frame does not allow sufficient time for progress to be made, and many relevant projects take considerable time to 'get off the ground'...; the EOWA Act reporting year should coincide with either a calendar or financial year to make generating relevant data more efficient.
(Submission, Australian Industry Group)
Many submissions noted that the reporting requirements were resource intensive; with 15 percent nominating that they were very resource intensive, nine percent that they are moderately resource intensive and four percent that they are not resource intensive or not appropriate.
In regard to the waiving provisions, 14 percent of submissions received indicated that the requirements were not effective, whilst six percent believed that they were effective.
In its submission, EOWA noted that a range of issues had arisen as a result of the flexible reporting format. Although employers are able to devise any reporting format that addresses the employment matters identified in section 3(1) of the EOWW Act, it is estimated that more than three-quarters of compliance reports are currently submitted using a version of the optional Public Report form.
Flexibility that was built into the 1999 Act has created uncertainty among employers about the standards to be applied both to their equal opportunity programs (i.e. their analysis, actions and evaluations) and to their reporting. This uncertainty has been reflected in employers' reports and has often meant that the Agency may not have a clear basis for evaluating many programs
(Submission, EOWA)
[ top ]
The issue of reporting was widely discussed at the roundtables. Many of the discussions focused on the reporting burden on industry and its impact on equal opportunity. Of particular concern to participants was the frequency of reporting as many considered that annual reporting was too frequent. The fact that the reporting cycle does not align with other reporting requirements, such as those for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and ASX, was also noted.
Some roundtable participants expressed the view that reporting requirements were too onerous for the benefit derived. Participants also noted that the current reporting format is too general and lacks clarity. It was also suggested that the ability to seek a waiver from reporting impacted on transparency.
A number of individuals interviewed through the consultation process commented on EOWA reporting requirements, including on the frequency of reporting. Some noted the positive impact that reporting had on equal opportunity issues and that reporting allowed businesses to track their progress over time.
A number of reporting organisations have indicated that the requirement to report has been beneficial to their operation as it has highlighted some important business metrics, which it can track over time.
(Interview, Daniel Mammone and David Gregory, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry)
Yearly reporting is also too frequent, it comes around too quickly and often implementing change takes longer than this so you are not getting meaningful reports being generated.
(Interview, Samantha Edwards and Tanya Zuccarino, Australian Industry Group)
[ top ]
Other interviewees raised the lack of transparency in reporting and the need to make reports public.
There is now a deregulated approach to reporting which means that reports are very inconsistent and subjective, most put a positive spin on policies and programs but there is very little real data or real action included in them. There is an incentive for organisations to submit 'glossy' reports which do not identify any problems because nothing is done about it if they don't, and in fact, there are public relations issues for them if they do. We have even seen organisations re-submitting the same report every year but there doesn't appear to be any compliance action taken for doing this. Most reporting organisations resort to the lowest common denominator now.
(Interview, Catherine Bowtell and Belinda Tkalcevic, Australian Council of Trade Unions)
The overall result of the survey of reporting organisations was mixed as to whether the requirement to prepare and submit a report to EOWA has had a positive influence on equal opportunity for women (38 percent either strongly agree or agree and 32 percent either disagree or strongly disagree). When asked which reporting requirements should be changed, the majority of organisations did not think that any amendments should be made ('no change' responses scored between 63 percent and 77 percent across the requirements). Some respondents noted that compiling an annual report drained resources that could be better utilised implementing equal employment opportunity programs.
Forty percent of reporting organisation survey respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that their employees were supplied with a copy of the organisation's report to EOWA compared with 27 percent that either agreed or strongly agreed.
This result is broadly consistent with the results from the employee survey, where most respondents (53 percent) indicated that they did not know if employees in their organisation were consulted in the process of developing the report to EOWA and 33 percent said that they were not consulted. Only nine percent of employee respondents said that they were consulted on the EOWA report.
[ top ]
5.1.4 Penalties, sanctions and enforcement
Issues relating to penalties, sanctions and enforcement of the EOWW Act were widely discussed throughout the consultation process. In particular, most stakeholders were generally dissatisfied with the adequacy of the available penalties and sanctions and the enforcement power available under the EOWW Act. Industry and employer representatives also generally acknowledged the lack of penalties and enforcement activity under the EOWW Act, however they did not support any strengthening of these arrangements.
Of the respondents to the public submission process, no respondents indicated that appropriate penalties had contributed to the effectiveness of the EOWW Act. However, of those that did not consider that the EOWW Act had contributed to improving women's employment opportunities, only five percent indicated that the cause was a lack of appropriate penalties.
The lack of enforcement power was highlighted as a significant issue in many submissions, with 39 percent (50 submissions) saying that the enforcement mechanisms currently in place are not sufficient to ensure that the objectives of the legislation are met. This contrasts with nine percent of responses that indicated that the enforcement mechanisms were sufficient. Categories of submitters indicated stronger views on this issue than others. Individuals, industry, academics and community organisations were less likely to consider that the enforcement mechanisms were insufficient, whereas submissions from expert individuals, government, union and peak body respondents were more likely to consider enforcement mechanisms insufficient.
[ top ]
Submissions indicated that enforcement mechanisms were insufficient because the penalties were not strong enough (34 percent - 43 submissions). Only one percent of submissions indicated that enforcement mechanisms are too strong.
Effectiveness of the procurement ban is dependent upon the relevant Government agency which is procuring the services/goods being aware of the EOWA determination, and the 'naming' outcome is dependent upon the employer being recognised as a brand name and therefore attracting media attention'
(Submission, Equal Employment Opportunity Network of Australasia.
'The (submitter) is unaware of any tendering organisations or grant or loan applicant which has failed to win a tender, a grant or a loan as a result of non-compliance with the Act. This may be because there are so few organisations assessed as non-compliant.'
(Submission, Union)
Under current legislation, there are few serious implications for organisations that fail to improve their gender diversity and equality performance...;'Naming' in parliament is a meaningful sanction only for blue-chip (and publicly listed) companies for whom brand and reputation as an employer of choice is important, and who need to respond to stakeholder expectations in relation to corporate social responsibility
(Submission, Industry)
The current reporting framework and requirements do not compel organisations to explain if and how EO is progressing for women in their organisation The minimum requirements for achieving compliant status are too easy and are heavily focused on descriptive narrative regarding implementing annual repots providing essentially the same descriptive material year after year can attain compliance status...;little effective mechanisms currently exist to compel reporting organisation to report on the development and implementation of EO for Women in any effective manner.
(Submission, Academic)
The compliance mechanism of naming in Parliament is only effective for organisations that need to maintain a good public relations profile. Organisations which do report have expressed discontentment with the fact that there is no penalty for organisations which do not report
(Interview, Samantha Edwards and Tanya Zuccarino, Australian Industry Group)
[ top ]
Few submissions expressed the view that existing compliance mechanisms are appropriate and effective.
The current system appears to be working when you look at the ratio of organisations completing the report, compared to those not completing the report (2,500 to 12).
(Submission, Industry)
EOWA's submission highlighted issues with enforcement and penalty mechanisms including the lack of deterrent effect that the naming in Parliament sanction has on some organisations. EOWA's submission also highlighted that a significant number of organisations that fit within the scope of the EOWW Act have failed to self-identify. It is estimated that approximately 4,500 organisations fit into this category.
Roundtable participants raised concerns about the ability to sanction organisations for non-compliance. Specific comments were made about organisations having nothing to lose through non-compliance and sanctioning applying at an organisational, rather than individual, level.
Individuals interviewed through the consultation process raised similar concerns to those raised in the public submissions and roundtables. Whilst there was some support for the power to name non-compliant organisations, this was outweighed by significant concerns about the strength of enforcement and sanctioning powers.
[ top ]
Those companies who are named in Parliament really don't care and don't believe there will be any resulting damage to their business. Naming in Parliament results in one bad media article, and no one remembers after that, unlike the high profile sex discrimination cases which people remember for years.
(Interview, Chris Ronalds SC )
EOWA is effective in supporting good and willing organisations to achieve improvements, however their overall impact is limited, especially when we are talking about the unwilling and recalcitrant organisations. EOWA has no teeth. There is a 'limp' compliance framework which means it can not deal with those organisations that choose not to comply with the legislation or choose not to take any action to improve outcomes for women, or for that matter choose to report that they are a lot better than they are.
(Interview, Susan Halliday)
There is a lack of penalties for non-compliance in the Act - the agency is not using the tools and force of the legislation effectively. The way that naming in Parliament power is used now is not very persuasive and nothing in the Act actually encourages organisations to internalise the priorities and put into effect change. To do this, companies need to develop strategies to effect cultural change, there is nothing in the Act that promotes this.
(Interview, Catherine Bowtell and Belinda Tkalcevic, Australian Council of Trade Unions)
The mechanism available to punish non-compliant reporting organisations has not provided a sufficient disincentive not to comply. Many tenders do not go through a formal tender process and government also relies on organisations to declare their non-compliant status, which many may not or may not be aware of.
(Interview, Juliet Bourke, Chair Equal Employment Opportunity Network of Australasia)
The results of the employee survey also highlight that some respondents are concerned about the effectiveness of current enforcement and penalty provisions. When asked what more could be done to achieve equal employment opportunities for women, seven percent of female respondents and 17 percent of male respondents indicated that clear and enforceable laws and reporting including penalties for non-compliance would have a positive impact.
[ top ]
5.1.5 Incentives and awards
There were some issues raised by consulted stakeholders in relation to the effectiveness of the current incentives to prevent non-compliance or drive organisations to go further than the minimum requirements of the EOWW Act.
The submissions received were not strong on the issue of whether a lack of incentives had impacted on the outcomes of the EOWW Act. Of the submissions that said that the EOWW Act had not contributed to improving women's employment outcomes, only one percent put forward a lack of incentives as the reason. Overall, only two percent of submissions stated that procurement incentives were appropriate.
Roundtable participants generally noted that the incentive mechanism of awards and competition between businesses is effective in compelling organisations to strive to achieve equal opportunity for women because there is a desire to better competitors' achievements. However, the structure of the award system was also discussed at roundtables as an area of concern, with a particular focus on the award criteria and whether it sufficiently rewards organisations that go beyond the requirements of the EOWW Act. Some participants questioned the credibility of the awards as they were aware of organisations who had won them, who they considered as having poor or mediocre performance in relation to employment equity for women.
Some interviewees noted that the existing incentives and awards are not bringing about change for women. However, other interviewees considered that the awards process has provided an incentive for organisations to strive for equal opportunity.
[ top ]
Awards have been particularly good incentives for organisations to strive to achieve EEO
(Interview, Juliet Bourke, Chair Equal Employment Opportunity Network of Australasia)
EOWA's education and awards as incentives have not been as effective as other mechanisms for change
(Interview, Professor Mark Wooden)
A larger proportion of surveyed reporting organisations indicated that the EOWA Employer of Choice citation provides an effective incentive mechanism for organisations to work towards achieving equal opportunity for women in the workplace than those who did not (32 percent agree or strongly agree and 19 percent disagree or strongly disagree). The Business Achievement Awards did not receive the same level of support, with 24 percent of respondents either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that it provided an incentive and 21 percent agreeing or strongly agreeing that it provided an effective incentive mechanism. The reporting organisation survey results suggest that, as the size of the organisation of the respondent decreases, so does the likelihood of a positive response to these programs.
5.2 EOWA
This section discusses findings from the consultation process in relation to the effectiveness of EOWA. It examines EOWA's roles and functions, including implementing reporting requirements, collecting data, and education and awareness raising.
[ top ]
5.2.1 Implementing reporting requirements
The consultation process has identified that, while many respondents were satisfied with EOWA's work in implementing reporting requirements, many also noted that EOWA is constrained by the legislative framework in which it operates as well as the resources it has available to it.
Within public submissions received, EOWA's role in implementing reporting requirements was relatively less valued and described as less effective than it could be. Seventeen percent of public submissions described EOWA's role of advising reporting organisations in their development of workplace programs and annual reports as valuable and effective. This was the fourth most valued and effective function of EOWA perceived by public submissions. Of the categories of submitters, government (four submissions) and expert individuals (two submissions) valued this function more highly than industry, peak bodies, academics and community organisation submissions.
Public submissions to the review indicated that there is concern regarding the role of EOWA in monitoring compliance of reporting organisations. Of the submissions received, 37 percent indicated that they did not consider EOWA's role to be adequate, compared with eight percent who believed it was adequate.
Roundtable participants were generally supportive of EOWA's role in overseeing the implementation of reporting requirements. Participants did question the scope of reporting requirements and noted that EOWA interpreted minimalist reports to be compliant with the EOWW Act. Some interviewees expressed the view that insufficient guidance on how organisations could best report was available and that there were few opportunities to hear about best practice. Participants were concerned that the current arrangements do not encourage continued improvement.
[ top ]
A number of roundtable participants and interviewees identified a key limitation in EOWA's ability to undertake its role effectively as arising from budget constraints.
The survey of reporting organisations showed a significant level of support for the feedback that EOWA assessors provide to organisations. Respondents indicated that EOWA had supported them in the preparation and submission of reports, with 69 percent either strongly agreeing or agreeing that EOWA had been effective in providing advice and information.
Some employees surveyed considered that EOWA did not provide sufficient recognition for good practice or going beyond what was required.
There appears to be inconsistencies in the application of EOWA requirements within and across industries
(employee survey respondent)
The feedback obtained by our organisation has been very helpful in identifying areas in which we could improve our service to women
(employee survey respondent)
[ top ]
5.2.2 Data collection
The scope of the data collected, and the capacity of EOWA to analyse and report on that data, were the main issues highlighted through the consultation process in relation to EOWA's data collection function.
In EOWA's submission to the review, it acknowledges that the current data set has significant limitations.
The reporting arrangements put in place by the EOWW Act enable the Agency to collect considerable information on workplaces' equal opportunity programs, issues and initiatives. Much of this information is, however, discursive...because organisations can choose what they want to report on under a given employment matter, comparison can be largely subjective and collated data is unavailable....There are a number of limitations to the current data
(Submission, EOWA)
Many submissions indicated concerns about the data set that EOWA maintains and its ability to measure changes in women's participation and equality in employment. Only eight percent of submissions believed the data set is adequate, whereas 22 percent did not.
The national reporting regime currently legislated by the EOWW Act is minimal and inadequate. This is largely due to the: lack of broader data collection in which employers and employees can contextualise their targets and achievements, and through which government is able to form appropriate policy and legislative response
(Submission, Australian Council of Trade Unions)
The Agency's data collection needs to be more substantive and should be a useful resource for researchers and practitioners
(Submission, Community and Public Sector Union - State Public Services Federation Group)
[ top ]
Roundtable participants commented that EOWA had insufficient data collection powers to properly fulfil its role. Participants at the Melbourne roundtable noted that EOWA's data collection and analysis was insufficient as it was too broad. At the Sydney roundtable, participants noted that there has been a loss in the tracking of important data within last decade.
Some respondents to the survey of reporting organisations commented that EOWA currently does not compare an organisation's results year by year. There was concern that this does not allow organisations to track their progress or to examine whether there is a change in the type of programs being delivered. Others also noted that data collection was too narrow and did not capture the type of information that can be used to successfully gauge and influence change.
EOWA is a function of the Act and therefore only as effective as the Act enables them to be.
(reporting organisation survey respondent)
[ top ]
5.2.3 Education and awareness raising
EOWA's education and awareness raising role was highly valued by those consulted, though it was noted by many that this role was not adequate. A number of respondents also commented on the cost of EOWA programs and workshops reducing some organisations' ability to access these educational services.
EOWA's role as an educator and agent of change was supported by the submission results. Thirty-nine percent of submissions considered that education and awareness raising was EOWA's most valuable and effective function. However, 32 percent of submissions indicated that EOWA's role in promoting understanding, acceptance and public discussion of equal opportunity was not adequate or appropriate. (Fourteen percent considered that the role was adequate and appropriate.)
Some roundtable participants in Adelaide noted that EOWA's training courses were expensive for smaller organisations and that most training was conducted in metropolitan areas. Participants considered that this limited the scope and reach of EOWA's education and awareness campaigns.
The issue of best practice was also discussed at the roundtables. The Adelaide roundtable discussed the need for enhanced networking opportunities between organisations that are doing well as a way of enhancing practices and building a body of knowledge in the business world about how things can be improved. It was noted at both the Melbourne and Adelaide roundtables that publishing information about best practice would be an effective tool for educating businesses and raising awareness of equal opportunity.
[ top ]
A theme in the individual interviews was that EOWA should either receive, or dedicate, additional resources to education and public awareness activities. Interviewees recognised the role of EOWA in driving behavioural change, but noted that it did not reach a wide enough audience or promote a deep understanding of the issues. Several interviewees stated that they believe the public profile of the organisation needs to be increased, through closer links into industry, greater independence from government and increasing the profile of its commentary in the media.
Refresh EOWA, potentially through re-branding to introduce it as a 'switched on' Agency able to provide expert advice and to influence change at the highest level.
(Interview, Amanda Mostyn, ASX)
It will also be important that through an enhanced educative role, EOWA's message is communicated to a broader audience. For example, small to medium size organisations and immigrant groups who may not be aware of the legislation or the rights of individuals according to the Act. In the case of SMEs, this is important in ensuring that as they grow and potentially become reporting organisations, they are aware of and prepared for the requirements
(Interview, Judith van Unen, Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia)
[ top ]
5.3 Institutional arrangements
The consultation process considered the effectiveness of the current institutional arrangements in achieving the objectives of the legislation to improve equal employment opportunity for women. The issues identified around the institutional arrangements were the role of different agencies and duplication and gaps in their functions, as well as the role and function of EOWA, its portfolio location within government, and whether it should remain as a separate agency or be combined with another entity. These issues were largely raised in the public submissions, interviews and roundtables, and were less prominent in the employee and reporting organisation surveys.
There were mixed views expressed through the submissions in relation to the question of whether there is duplication between EOWA and other agencies, including the FWO and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Fifteen submissions (12 percent) expressed the view that there was duplication, whereas 11 submissions indicated that there was not. A number of the submissions that disagreed with the statement that duplication exists particularly objected to the suggestion that there was overlap between the reporting obligations of EOWA and the role of the FWO.. These submissions believed that the FWO has a stronger compliance and inspecting role in relation to the law, whereas EOWA should be more concerned with promoting leading practice and cultural change in organisations and, as such, that these agencies are complementary to an extent.
The submissions from key government agencies, such as the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the interview with the FWO, raised some concerns about the current lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities between these agencies, particularly for action to tackle systemic discrimination and to drive systemic reform to achieve gender equality in Australian workplaces.
[ top ]
There is a lack of clarity about which statutory authority is responsible for which lead roles, particularly in taking systemic action to achieve gender equality in the workplace. For example, it is possible that any one of these authorities (EOWA, Sex Discrimination Commissioner/Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman) could be responsible for driving systemic action to close the gender pay gap in Australia. The same could be said for reporting on progress to achieve gender equality in the workplace. There are also no formal links or obligations to coordinate action in situations where coordination is required to ensure the system operates in a cohesive manner. The lack of clarity about roles, and obligations to coordinate action, means that the national gender machinery is not as effective as it could be.
(Submission, Australian Human Rights Commission)
The legislation and the agencies are basically in the same arena but come at the issues from different perspectives. The Fair Work Ombudsman has a much stronger compliance role around minimum standards whereas the role of EOWA is more about promoting and providing incentives for best practice...;I think overall, the institutional and legal arrangements are quite fragmented at the moment, however this review, along with the other government review activities underway, provide an opportunity for government to come to a more coherent view about how to best address workplace issues around discrimination and equality.
(Interview, Nicholas Wilson, Fair Work Ombudsman)
It is of great concern however, that the issues to be dealt with remain largely the same as 25 years ago, and having a dedicated agency, albeit a very small agency, allows for abrogation of broader responsibilities within government to this tiny specialised unit. Having a government agency allows the rest of government to distance themselves from the issue; having HR departments in organisations involved with the 'busy' work of reporting to EOWA allows the CEO and board to remain at arm's length from the facts.
(Submission, Boardroom Partners)
- Previous: 4 Barriers to achieving equality for women in the workplace
- Next: 6 What works to achieve equal employment opportunity for women
[ top ]