Skip to content

office of women banner

Review of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 Consultation Report

A Project methodology

A.1 Project approach

The six stages of KPMG's approach in assisting the Office for Women with the review of the EOWW Act and their associated timeframes are presented in Figure 1. Each state of the project is described below.

Figure 1 - Project Approach

Figure 1 - Project Approach:Figure 1 - Project Approach. Figure one depicts the six stages of the project and their associated timeframes. Stage one (project initiation) commenced 15 June 2009 through to 20 June 2009. Stage two comprises research and issues paper development and was conducted from 20 June 2009 to 29 August 2009. Stage three of the project is the public submissions and surveys process and took place from 29 August 2009 until 30 October 2009. Stage four is the final analysis phase, which ran from 24 October 2009 to 20 November 2009. The final stage of the project is the reporting stage which commenced on 4 November 2009, and finished on 30 November 2009.
Description

The project has been overseen by a Project Reference Group (PRG) comprising key expert individuals, as set out in the following table.


Figure 2- Project Reference Group members
Name Title/ organisation
Susan Halliday Chairperson, Victorian Institute of Teaching
Catherine Harris AO Chairperson, Harris Farm Markets
Prof Marian Baird Researcher, University of Sydney
Prof Mark Wooden Deputy Director, Melbourne Institute; Director HILDA Survey
Dr Alex Birrell Director, Commercialisation, ATP Innovations
Sue Lines, proxy for Louise Tarrant National Assistant Secretary, LHMU
Belinda Tkalcevic, proxy for Sharan Burrow Convenor, ACTU Women's Committee
Katie Lahey Chief Executive, Business Council of Australia
Ann Sherry AO Chief Executive Officer, Carnival Australia
Heather Ridout Chief Executive, Australian Industry Group

[ top ]

A.2 Public submissions

Consultation questions were posed within each section of an Issues Paper as a means of facilitating responses through a public submission process.

Figure 3 - Public Submissions by source category

Figure 3 - Public Submissions by source category: Figure 3 shows the breakdown of EOWW Act reporting organisation survey respondents by industry. The greatest number of responses came from manufacturing (19 per cent), education and training (16 per cent), health care and social assistance (10 per cent), and professional, scientific and technical services (9 per cent). Other industry results include: financial and insurance services (6 per cent); agriculture, forestry and fishing (5 per cent); accommodation and food services (5 per cent); information, media and telecommunications (4 per cent); other services (4 per cent); administration and support services (4 per cent); mining (3 per cent); retail (3 per cent); transport, postal and warehousing (3 per cent); construction (3 per cent); arts and recreational services (2 per cent); electricity, gas, water and waste services (1 per cent); rental hire (1 per cent); blank (1 per cent); wholesale trade (1 per cent); and public administration and safety (0 per cent).
Description

Source: KPMG Public Submission register

Processing the public submissions involved the collection, registration and analysis of all submissions. Public submissions were collected through an online mailbox as well as in hard copy. The registration process involved a formal acknowledgement of each submission received as well as unique identifying details being allocated to each submission to enable the coding and analysis processes. A coding tool was developed specifically for the public submissions. The coding tool utilised a two-way survey mechanism, which captured quantitative and qualitative information from each submission. Submissions were coded according to the consultation questions posed under six themes within the Issues Paper. The coding process was tightly controlled to ensure consistency and accuracy of coding.

[ top ]


Submission Source Name of Submitter/Organisation Organisation Branch (if applicable)
Individual Rodney Stephens NA
Academic Andrea McCall, Monash University, Berwick and Peninsula Campuses Department of Management
Academic Charlotte Jordan, Monash University, Peninsula Campus Department of Management
Academic Mimi Zou, University of Sydney Faculty of Economics and Business; Discipline of Work and Organisational Studies
Academic Anna Yeatman, University of Western Sydney Centre for Citizenship and Public Policy
CSO Women on Boards Pty Ltd and National Foundation for Australian Women Ltd NA
Individual Carol O'Donnell NA
Individual Maree McLaren NA
CSO Human Rights Law Resource Centre Ltd NA
Peak body Equal Employment Opportunity Network of Australasia (EEONA) NA
Academic Professor Michael Keniger, The University of Queensland Office of the Vice Chancellor
Union National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) NA
Academic Heather Cameron, Griffith University Equity, Diversity and Policy Implementation
CSO 2020women NA
CSO Public Interest Law Clearing House (Vic) Inc NA
CSO Women's Health Victoria NA
Peak body Community Employers WA NA
Academic Professor Jane den Hollander, Curtin University of Technology NA
CSO Disability Services Australia NA
Academic Ruth Blenkiron, University of South Australia Human Resources Unit
Individual Associate Professor Beth Gaze NA
Academic Dr Sev Ozdowski, University of Western Sydney Equity and Diversity
Peak body South Australian Wine Industry Association NA
Peak body Australian Industry Group National Workplace Relations
CSO Australian Centre for Leadership for Women NA
Industry Emberin Pty Ltd NA
Peak body Australian Federation of Employers and Industries NA
CSO Women's Forum Australia NA
Individual Victoria Weekes NA
Industry Sydney Airport Corporation Limited NA
Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Workplace Relations Policy Group
Industry Woolworths Limited Government Relations
CSO Women's Legal Service Victoria NA
Union Community and Public Sector Union State Public Services Federation Group
CSO Baptistcare (WA Baptist Hospitals and Homes Trust Inc) NA
CSO International Women's Federation of Commerce and Industry NA
Peak body Security4Women (S4W) NA
Individual Margaret Thornton NA
CSO Victorian Women Lawyers NA
Peak body Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) NA
CSO Victorian Women's Trust NA
Individual Susan McGrath-Champ NA
Government Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) NA
Peak body Law Council of Australia Equalising Opportunities in the Law Committee
Academic Prof. Michael Keniger, The University of Queensland NA
Individual Diane Grady NA
Industry Boardroom Partners NA
Academic Professor Ed Byrne, Monash University NA
Individual Wendy McCarthy AO NA
CSO Mercy Health NA
Industry Qantas Group NA
Peak body Australian Federation of University Women NA
CSO Diversity Council of Australia NA
Individual David Peetz NA
Peak body Women's Electoral Lobby (WEL) Victorian
Peak body Chamber of Commerce & Industry Queensland (CCIQ) NA
Union Liquor Hospitality Miscellaneous Union (LMHU) NA
Expert Katie Spearritt and Diane Ryall NA
Expert Anne Summers NA
CSO Vicki Long, Royal District Nursing Service NA
Government Government of South Australia, Office for Women Premier's Council for Women
Academic Dr Lesley Clark, James Cook University Equity and Diversity
Union Australian Education Union NA
Government City of Sydney NA
Peak body Equal Opportunity Practitioners in Higher Education Australasia (EOPHEA) NA
Peak body Financial Services Institute of Australasia (Finsia) NA
Government Australian Human Rights Commission NA
Peak body National Pay Equity Coalition and Women's Electoral Lobby Australia Inc NA
Government Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission NA
Government Queensland Government Office for Women
Academic Dr Sara Charlesworth, RMIT NA
Academic Sally Walker, Deakin University NA
Government Victorian Government Office of Women's Policy
Industry Origin Energy NA

[ top ]

A.3 Survey of reporting organisations

The survey was designed with a mixture of free-text and interval response scale questions to enable qualitative and quantitative analysis of results. The survey was designed to take approximately 10 minutes to complete. A pilot test of the survey was undertaken with five reporting organisations to refine the tool. Prior to being analysed, survey results were subject to a range of integrity checks. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on survey data, which aimed at identifying and quantifying relationships among respondents' characteristics and variables of interest to the review.

Further detail on the breakdown of respondents by industry sector, organisation size and compliance status is provided in the following figures.

Figure 4 - reporting organisation survey respondents by industry

Figure 4 shows the percentages of EOWW Act reporting organisation survey respondents by organisation size. The majority of respondents came from organisations with between 100 and 499 employees (56 per cent), followed by organisations with over 500 employees (39 per cent). Four per cent of respondents came from organisations with 20-99 employees, and one per cent was unknown. There were no surveys received from respondents from organisations with fewer than 20 employees.
Description

Source: EOWA List of reporting organisations

Figure 5 - reporting organisation survey respondent by organisation size

Figure 5 - reporting organisation survey respondent by organisation size: Figure 5 shows the percentages of reporting organisation survey respondents by compliance status. The greatest number of responses came from organisations with compliant-moderate status (62 per cent), followed by compliant-high level status (13 per cent), waived for two years (12 per cent), compliant-marginal (11 per cent), waived for one year (1 per cent), and blank (1 per cent).
Description


Source: EOWA List of reporting organisations

Figure 6 - reporting organisation survey respondent by compliance status

Figure 6 - Reporting organisation survey respondent by compliance statusThis figure shows that most of the respondents to the reporting organisation survey were moderately compliant to the EOWW Act (62 per cent). The next largest group of respondents were highly compliant organisations (13 per cent), followed by organisations whose obligation to report has been waived for two years (12 per cent), marginally compliant organisations (11 per cent) and organisations whose obligation to report has been waived for one year (one per cent).
Description

Source: EOWA List of reporting organisations

[ top ]

A.4 Survey of employees

A breakdown of survey respondents by gender, industry, organisation size and existence of dependents are provided in the following figures. A total of 859 responses to the employee survey were submitted.

Figure 7 - Employee survey respondents by gender

Figure 7 - Employee survey respondents by gender This graph shows that 95 per cent of respondents to the employee survey were female, while 5 per cent were male.
Description

Figure 8 - Employee survey respondents by industry

Figure 8 - Employee survey respondents by industry More than half of employee survey respondents were from the Education <br> (28 per cent) and Health and Community Services sectors (23 per cent). Other rest of respondents came from the following sectors: government administration and defence (14 per cent), finance and insurance (7 per cent), personal and other services (6 per cent), communication services (4 per cent), property and business services (4 per cent). Two per cent of respondents were from the cultural and recreational services sector; electricity, gas and water supply sector; construction sector and retail trade sector. The rest of respondents were from the manufacturing sector; transport and storage sector; and mining sector.
Description

Figure 9 - Employee survey respondents by organisation size

Figure 9 - Employee survey respondents by organisation size Most employee survey respondents (51 per cent) were from organisations with 500 or more employees. Twenty per cent were from organisations with 100 to 499 employees, 13 per cent were from organisations with 20 to 99 employees and 15 per cent were from organisations with less than 20 employees.
Description

Source: KPMG employee survey results register

Figure 10 - Employee survey respondents by existence of dependents

Figure 10 - Employee survey respondents by existence of dependents Most employee survey respondents had no dependents (54 per cent), while 46 per cent of respondents did have dependents.
Description

Source: KPMG employee survey results register

[ top ]

A.5 Interviews

The project involved conducting interviews with 21 stakeholders from a range of backgrounds. The interviewees who have provided consent to be quoted in the report are listed below:


Name Organisation
Elizabeth Broderick and Dr Cassandra Goldie Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Director, Sex and Age Discrimination Unit, Human Rights Commission respectively
Samiro Douglas CEO, Women's Information and Referral Exchange (WIRE)
Daniel Mammone and David Gregory Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Catherine Harris Chairperson, Harris Farm Markets
Dr Alex Birrell Director, Commercialisation,
ATP Innovations
Judith van Unen Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia
Juliet Bourke Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Network of Australasia and Partner, Aequus Partners
Mark Wooden Professorial Research Fellow and Acting Director
Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research
University of Melbourne
Philippa Hall Director, Pay and Employment Equity Unit, Department of Labour, New Zealand
Ann Sherry AO CEO, Carnival Australia
Chris Ronalds SC Barrister, Frederick Jordan Chambers
Nicholas Wilson Fair Work Ombudsman
Samantha Edwards and Tanya Zuccarino Australian Industry Group
Marian Baird and Alex Heron University of Sydney
Susan Halliday, Chairperson, Victorian Institute of Teaching
Louise Tarrant, Katherine Whitty and Elaine Hudson LHMU
Amanda Mostyn ASX
Catherine Bowtell and Belinda Tkalcevic ACTU Women's Committee

A.6 Data analysis process

The project involved the analysis of all consultation activities, including the findings from the facilitated roundtables, individual interviews, survey of reporting organisations, survey of employees, public submissions and the literature review. Prior to the substantive analysis being undertaken, the received data was subject to a range of integrity checks.

To enable analysis and consolidation of results across multiple project activities, distinct analytical tools were developed for the different consultation activities. The analytical tools developed for the surveys and public submissions have the capability to capture both qualitative and quantitative information. This enabled the identification of trends by areas of interest and a degree of comparability, particularly between the responses of reporting organisations and the responses of employees. In relation to the facilitated roundtables, individual interviews and literature review, feedback from each was categorised and considered against the terms of reference for the review.


[ top ]