Forty years ago, Australia did something quite bold.
Good afternoon
I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people as the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we come together today and pay respects to Elders throughout all time. I acknowledge that First Nations people have passed knowledge between generations for tens of thousands of years, a powerful reminder that what we inherit matters, as does what we choose to leave for those who come after us.
I acknowledge and thank Her Excellency the Honourable Sam Mostyn for hosting us today. I would also like to acknowledge Senator the Honourable Katy Gallagher, Minister for Women; the Honourable Michelle O’Byrne, Australia’s Ambassador for Gender Equality; and the Honourable Dame Quentin Bryce, former Governor-General.
Forty years ago, Australia did something quite bold.
We decided that equality at work wasn’t just something that women had to navigate for themselves. Instead, employers should look at what was happening inside their own workplaces, identify the barriers women face and do something about them.
This might sound unremarkable now. But in 1986, it wasn’t.
Just before the Affirmative Action Agency opened its doors, Prime Minister Bob Hawke tabled the Setting the Agenda report in Parliament, drawing on the voices of 25,000 women. They spoke about limited employment opportunities. Lower rewards from work. Workplaces that did not recognise family responsibilities. And women concentrated in too narrow a range of occupations and industries.
Forty years later, some of those concerns sound remarkably familiar. But, Australia has also changed enormously.
In 1986, fewer than half of Australian women participated in paid work. Today, it is close to two-thirds.
Women have entered occupations, professions and industries in numbers that would have been difficult to imagine when this Agency began.
And yet our workplaces remain highly gender segregated. Women remain less likely to reach management and leadership. Women still undertake more of the unpaid care that makes paid work possible. And progress has not been experienced equally. Gender intersects with culture, disability, age and other circumstances that shape opportunities at work,
Over the 40 years, women have changed their relationship with work enormously. The question now is whether our workplaces have changed enough with them.
The history of this agency shows that thinking can change.
We began with action: under Valerie Pratt, the first Agency Director, the Affirmative Action Act and the Agency (or Triple A as it was known) asked employers to identify barriers to women participation and do something about them.
From the beginning, workplace gender equality was both a social good and an economic imperative. Wasting the talent, skills and education of half the population was understood as a national inefficiency.
Over successive decades, the focus expanded from action, to evidence and measurement. Under Helen Conway, who I am delighted to acknowledge today, the Workplace Gender Equality Act established the reporting framework and dataset we know today.
Under Libby Lyons, also here today, WGEA became a stronger national voice, embedded in mainstream business discussion.
More recently, led by Minister Katy Gallagher and under Mary Wooldridge’s leadership, we have moved on to the publication of employer gender pay gaps and gender equality targets for larger employers.
Each iteration built on the one before it; and each one was prepared to ask a slightly harder question. I think it is time to ask the next one.
Australia has invested enormously in the skills and education of its people. At the same time, we face skills shortages, demographic change and a persistent productivity challenge.
There is little point investing in attracting and developing talent if our workplaces are not designed to keep it. We cannot afford to lose that investment or make less than full use of the talent we have.
So the question is no longer simply: are women participating?
It is: are we making the most of Australia’s talent?
Are we attracting, developing and keeping talent where we need?
Can both women and men combine work and care without one predictably paying the larger career price?
And are we designing work around what the job actually requires – rather than simply inheriting ways of working because that is how work has been done?
And, yes, different jobs have different operational realities.
But real benefits will flow if we are rigorous about what work actually requires, creative about how those requirements can be met and ambitious about the talent we might otherwise leave on the sidelines.
Looking back over 40 years, one other lesson is clear.
No single reform created change on its own. Governments, Agency leaders, researchers, employers, employees and unions all played a part. Many of those changemakers are in this room today.
So, today is an opportunity to celebrate what we have achieved and the ambition of those who drove that change.
But I would like us to do something more. I’d like us to ask this question:
What is the idea that seems ambitious today, but in another 40 years will leave us wondering why it ever seemed so difficult?