Review of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 – Submission
Disability Services Australia
Preamble
Disability Services Australia Limited (DSA) has identified a selection of the consultation questions contained in the Issues Paper on which we believe we are qualified to offer comment. Our submission is based on our own experience as a reporting organisation, and as an active member of a number of employer groups where the role of the EOWA and the application of the EOWW Act form part of continual informal discussion.
Q1.1 What factors and measures have contributed to improving employment opportunities and outcomes for women?
A slow change in the attitudes of senior management has resulted in workplace flexibility becoming a more acceptable part of the workplace culture. This should not however be solely attributed to voluntary workplace change, or a recognition that workplace flexibility creates a more productive workforce. Much of this change has resulted because of the constant and unrelenting push of the legislation underpinning such change, and the changing case law that has created a firm guideline against which organisations can benchmark their own practices. Therefore, the impact of the legislative framework should not be underestimated when considering the extent to which attitudes towards women in the workplace have changed.
Q1.2. What are the obstacles that may impede further progress towards equal employment opportunity within organisations and in Australia generally?
A major obstacle is the increasing requirement of the labour force, and particularly women, for workplace flexibility, and the continuing resistance to change on behalf of employers. There is a disconnect between what employers are trying to offer and what the labour force are willing to accept.
The traditional face of the working week has changed significantly over the past ten to fifteen years. There has been an increasing requirement for workers to be available on a twenty four hour seven day a week basis, or participate in rostering, where their hours change constantly. For society to move forward, there needs to be a change in workplace structure that increases flexibility in a positive way for the worker, but not at the expense of job security or productivity. Ideally, organisations should drive these changes, in partnership with the workforce. However, the union movement must embrace the concept of flexibility as well, and the familiar rigidity of award structures do not readily accommodate such transformations.
Q1.4. What regulatory role should government play to achieve equal employment opportunity for women?
There is a role for Government to play in maintaining the focus on the need for change. Whilst measuring outcomes is important, of critical importance is driving structural change in the workforce. The requisite changes cannot occur unless the current rigid approach to work is abandoned. If work is restructured to meet the needs of the labour force, the outcomes will follow.
When businesses identify the rewards for pioneering and championing new flexibilities in the workplace, and for identifying major cultural shifts which drive the integration of work and wellness/life balance, all workers will eventually derive equal benefit. But until those rewards become known and accepted across industry, there is a requirement for a regulatory enforcement agency to ensure minimum compliance.
Ultimately, the creation of a workplace which, because of its flexibility, can meet all of its workforce requirements, in whatever quantities it requires would allow greater workforce participation for everyone, including those who have specialist skills, limited time, a need for change and diversity in their work, or competing demands on their energies. Such a structure would support the engagement of workers based on skills, and not on artificial grounds such as those covered by anti-discrimination legislation. Until this is generally accepted across industry and commerce, regulatory mechanisms will be needed to continue to drive change.
Q2.1 Are the objects of the EOWW Act appropriate and relevant for today’s workplaces?
They are appropriate and relevant for today’s workplaces. However, we are trying to change outcomes without changing the frameworks that created and nurtured the attitudes that created current practices. If we want to change outcomes, we have to change processes.
Q2.2 Has the EOWW Act been effective in meeting it’s objects?
To the extent that discrimination has not been eliminated, it hasn’t been effective. However, the promotion of the merit principle, which has been widely accepted as a general employment principle, has been a great success. Fostering workplace consultation between employers is not a highly visible role, but is one on which greater reliance will fall in furthering awareness of the Act’s objectives.
Q2.4. Should the role of men as fathers and carer’s be acknowledged in the EOWW Act?
To the extent that women are the victims of workplace discrimination, they deserve to have the focus of the Act directed to specifically dealing with them. To incorporate the role of men as fathers suggests that discrimination against women is largely due to their caring responsibilities, and whilst this is a factor, it is not the only basis on which discrimination against women occurs. If there needs to be a focus on discrimination on the basis of caring responsibilities, against both male and female, then a new Act, devoted to such issues, would avoid any dilution of the EOWW Act.
Q2.6. Is the self identification and disclosure of organisations appropriate? Is there another way that organisations should or could be identified?
Unless the Act is changed to reflect different outcomes, such as the structural change of the workplace, self identification appears to be the best form of reporting, because to provide the information required by the Act requires an intimate knowledge of both the organisation and it’s recent history and activities which would not be readily captured by, for example, third party observers.
Q3.3 Is the process for developing workplace programs useful and appropriate?
They are a useful guideline, and DSA refers to them as a resource. DSA supports female staff and creates opportunities for female staff to transition into leadership roles, and these practices are now part of our workplace culture. We recruit on the basis of merit, but will always apply affirmative action in the event that two candidates of equal merit become available, one male and the other female. This situation has eventuated over time because of our previous workplace programs.
Q3.6. Is the frequency of reporting optimal? Are the provisions for waiving reporting requirements effective? If not, what changes do you think are necessary?
For DSA, annual reporting is too frequent. It does not provide enough time for actions to progress, particularly where there is a multi-dimensional program. We have achieved waived reporting status on two occasions, and found the break between the reporting to be advantageous in both the review of our activities and in more clearly identifying what actions led to what outcomes. Workplaces are very busy places, and it is not always possible to identify the causes and effects of actions when they are monitored and summarised without the benefit of enough time passing.
Q3.7 How resource intensive are the reporting requirements for organisations? Can you provide examples of the costs of reporting from your experience?
For DSA, the report preparation is a difficult time as it requires a full-time resource to be allocated to the task for several days. In addition to this, as the activities which are reported are varied and involve multiple activities from different streams of HR activity (such as Recruitment, Learning & Development, Operations – transfers, promotions, payroll, exit interviews) the collation of data requires significant input from several HR staff and this is generally performed over several meetings. Many activities apply to multiple programs too, which means we have to separate inputs to specific outcomes, which can be extremely difficult. The final compilation usually takes up to two days, and is completed by the HR Director. The requirements therefore can be quite onerous, however, the resulting report is a valuable document to the organisation, and we use it as a guide for future activities as well as a historic record.
As an estimate, the total working hours DSA spent in preparing the report this year was 76.
Q3.9 Are the enforcement mechanisms currently in place sufficient to ensure that the objectives of the legislation are met? If so, how? If not, why not?
For DSA, which is a not-for-profit organisation with a high dependency on State and Federal Government funding, the current enforcement mechanisms are highly effective in ensuring compliance. However, mere compliance is the minimum requirement. The real value to any organisation of robust and comprehensive compliance is the evaluation of activities and outcomes and their impact on the organisation’s profile. This is a function of education, awareness and of course resources, and is not easily captured by enforcement mechanisms.
Q4.3 Is the role of EOWA in promoting understanding and acceptance, and public discussion of equal opportunity for women in the workplace adequate and appropriate? If not, how should it be changed.?
The EOWA plays a vital role in this respect, because it brings to the debate a credibility not readily acknowledged in other bodies. Awareness is one of the greatest tools available to fight the prejudices which clandestinely feed inequality in the workplace. If possible, this role should be expanded and given a greater profile as it directly impacts on EOWA’s ability to achieve its objectives.
Q5.1 Does the EOWW Act complement or overlap with other legislation? How could the relationship of the EOWW Act to other legislation be clarified or improved?
The EOWW Act complements other legislation rather than overlaps with it. The focus on organisations rather than individuals is a valuable departure in ensuring that the single most significant subject in achieving the objectives of the Act – the workplace – is measured and reviewed regularly.
Disability Services Australia Limited
October 16, 2009.
Contact: Theresa Smith
Director, Human Resources
(02) 9791 6599
[ top ]