SENATOR THE HON KATY GALLAGHER, MINISTER FOR WOMEN: It’s lovely to be here with Mary Wooldridge, the Chief Executive Officer of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and before I begin, I’d like to thank Mary and her team for the extraordinary amount of work that goes into these big publications of data. As you will have seen in the briefings you’ve had and the release today, this is a significant release of data about what’s going on in Australian workplaces and in particular what’s going on in relation to addressing the gender pay gap. We’ve made no secret since coming to government that addressing women’s economic equality in this country has been a key priority for the Albanese Labor Government. It’s put together in having the Minister for Finance as the Minister for Women, to make sure that a lot of the policies about driving equality is done from the centre of government and that we’re looking at every which way we can to make sure that women get a fair crack at the opportunities when it comes to women and work, and closing the gender pay gap has been fundamental to that.
I think, and I’ll hand to Mary in a moment, I just wanted to make a few introductory remarks. I think overall there’s been good progress towards closing the gender pay gap. And over the last couple of years, we’ve had some significant investments in industries where women dominate. So, aged care in relation to the aged care wages, early education and care for those workers. But also, supporting wage increases for workers on the minimum wage, again where we see lots of women. And we’ve seen that women are now earning $217 more per week than when we came to government in May 2022 as a result of some of those policies. The release today is the second release of this transparency data about what’s happening in the individual businesses and employers across the country, and again Mary has all the detail, but the important takeouts for me were that more employers reduced their gender pay gap this year, the size of the gaps are coming down, and importantly, which was part of the reason why we wanted this data out there, we saw more and more employers engage in what’s happening in their businesses themselves, engaging with staff, but also doing some analysis about what’s driving some of those outcomes across their companies. And I think all three of those things are welcome. There is always more to do and I think part of this addressing the gender pay gap has always been uncovering what’s going on, and this data allows that to happen. I’ll hand to you, Mary.
MARY WOOLDRIDGE, CEO, WORKPLACE GENDER EQUALITY AGENCY: Thanks, Minister. And it is an exciting day for us at WGEA and I think for the Australian community as a whole. And there has been a lot of momentum for improving gender equality in our workplaces. That’s motivated by both economic and social reasons. Business leaders know that they need the best talent in their workplaces. They also know that it’s good for their bottom line. But it’s also consistent with our belief about a fair go and equality of opportunity. Our gender pay gap has been coming down slowly over time, and so as you heard from the Minister, there have been a suite of measures that have been put in place to accelerate change. The publishing of employer gender pay gaps is a really important part of that, and even though it’s early days for this reform, it’s already having a positive impact. Last year, 56 per cent of companies improved their average total remuneration gender pay gap. We’ve also seen a big increase in the number of companies doing a gender pay gap analysis to understand what’s driving gender differences in their workplaces. And more employers are consulting with their employees about their experiences at work. These are critical actions that underpin action-taking on gender equality in the workplace, and they’re critical for driving change. We know that executives and directors are seeking to learn more about the gender pay gap and what’s driving it, and conversations at board level are happening much more substantially now that WGEA reporting results are required to be provided to them. We’re also getting feedback from prospective employees that they’re asking about a company’s gender pay gap in job interviews, and that comes in the context of recently released research by Our Watch that says that a company’s approach to gender equality is an important consideration for three quarters of jobseeking women and nearly half of jobseeking men.
So, today is the second time that WGEA is releasing employer gender pay gap results and we take another step forward in terms of transparency of the employer gender equality experience and their performance. So, we’ve released 9500 company and corporate group gender pay gaps, covering 5.3 million employees. And for the first time, you can look through a corporate group structure to the individual employers within them. We’ve also added average gender pay gaps in addition to the medians that we published last year, and we’re publishing average total remuneration by quartile in addition to the composition quartiles. And this is really important, because the gender pay gap is about the result of gendered differences in both pay and composition in a workplace. And that’s why we’ve published both of these results by quartile. And it’s important to restate, and I can’t state enough, that the gender pay gap is not the same as equal pay for equal work. That’s been the law for over 50 years. The gender pay gap measures something quite different.
So, let me give you a few headline numbers. Currently, 50 per cent of employers have a gender pay gap larger than 12.1 per cent in favour of men. And we call that the median employer gender pay gap. There’s a high level of variation and individual challenges within different industries. For example, in the construction industry, the midpoint of employer gender pay gaps is 25.3 per cent, while in healthcare and social assistance it’s 3.7 per cent. 72 per cent of employers have an average total remuneration gender pay gap significantly in favour of men, that means more than five per cent in favour of men. And 6.5 per cent have a gender pay gap significantly in favour of women, that’s a gender pay gap of less than minus 5 per cent, which leaves 21 per cent in our target range of plus or minus 5 per cent in terms of their gender pay gap. And while the aspiration is of course to get a gender pay gap to zero, it’s important to have that target range to allow for the normal fluctuations in an employer in terms of recruitment, promotions, resignations, and so on. And when we look at both the average and the median gender pay gaps, only 15 per cent of employers are in the target range for both of those measures. But that’s over 1,100 companies that are already meeting those benchmark performances, which is quite significant. And we do expect these results to improve as we continue to publish gender pay gaps each year.
The new information that WGEA has published today will help spur conversations, analysis and insights about the barriers that men and women face in the workplace as they go to work or they seek to find a job. And we believe it’s also a catalyst for employers to implement evidence-based practice that can and should be undertaken to remove the barriers that impact people’s ability to participate in the workforce, to earn a fair wage and to fully utilise their skills and capabilities. The solutions can be complex, but they are doable, and the key thing that employers need to ask are, what is it about our workforce that is driving the gender pay gap? What barriers do we need to remove so that women and men can work and earn at all levels in our organisation? And how do we ensure that our workplace is safe and fair? Today’s results will be challenging for some, but they are a reflection of the experience of employees in workplaces across Australia. Closing the gender pay gap matters to women and men in Australia who feel its impact through the loss of opportunities and the limitations on their earnings. And it matters to employers, who seek to be as competitive and innovative as they can be and to widen the talent pool from which they recruit. Today’s step is another step in the path of public accountability and is an important contributor to accelerating positive change to remove the gender pay gap and to enhance gender equality in Australian workplaces.
GALLAGHER: Thanks, Mary. Can I just say two more things before I go to questions? One, to thank all of you for the coverage that you’ve provided this data release. It’s been significant and, you know, for an old-time feminist actually reading the papers and the media stories today and getting the level of coverage that we have on the gender pay gap is really heartening. So, thank you very much. The other point I just want to make is the next logical step from this transparency release, or this data release, is the Bill that’s currently before the Parliament, which formed part of recommendations from a review of the WGEA Act which recommended the setting of targets for large companies, setting of targets about areas they want to improve. So, after they’ve done the analysis, they’ve provided the information, how do we get that change happening within organisations? And the ability for companies to set targets and then measure their performance against that target – this was all agreed and had been bipartisan, tripartisan, whole of Parliament supported until the last month, when Peter Dutton reversed his position on that and said it’s too burdensome on companies to support that reform. This is the next logical reform, this will help drive the work that Mary and her colleagues are doing to close the gender pay gap, but after years of bipartisan support, Peter Dutton and his team are now opposing those reforms and I imagine we can all understand why in this current environment. But I would urge him to reconsider that and put the interests of women and women at work number one before his own self-political interests. Happy to take some questions.
JOURNALIST: Has the rise from working from home over the last few years had an impact on closing the gender pay gap? And if that was to be wound back, do you think there’d be any change in progress?
WOOLDRIDGE: So, workplace flexibility is an important enabler for particularly women, but anyone who has parental and caring responsibilities, to be able to balance those competing responsibilities between working and the caring responsibilities that they have. So, we’re very supportive of them. Flexible working arrangements are quite broad. It includes working from home, but it also can include job-share, variable shift hours, being able to choose your shifts and a whole range of other measures. But there is no doubt that enhanced flexible working arrangements enhances access to participation in the workforce and to working at the highest possible level to contribute both to the workplace and the economy as a whole.
JOURNALIST: Minister, taking in the CEO pays in this data, the pay gap did slightly increase. That’s despite wages rising in the care sector and your government’s PPL reforms. What more can be done and can we expect to see any measures that will form part of Labor’s re-election campaign?
GALLAGHER: Well, obviously we will have more to say about women and supporting women and driving equality across the country as we work through the next few months. But we’ve made this a central focus for us and it hasn’t just been in pay, although that’s an important area, making sure women are getting recognised through their pay packets for the work they do – and it’s been undervalued and under-recognised for too long – but in a whole range of other areas, whether it be women’s safety, housing, educational opportunities. You know, you name it, we’re in that space looking for ways to shift the dial and make sure women get the fair treatment and equality that they deserve. We know that that’s not the case, it hasn’t been the case, but we’re seeing significant improvements, and we want to keep that moving forward. I think the biggest risk to that is the Opposition. I mean, they’ve now said working from home’s, you know, going to be cancelled. They’re also saying they won’t support the next reforms for the WGEA review. These were commonsense recommendations to just allow target-setting to continue to shift the dial in individual workplaces. They’ve now said they oppose that. You know, they don’t have women’s interests at heart. They don’t see it as a central economic driver of growth in our economy, we do, and we want to keep pushing that change. On the working from home, can I just say on this – clearly, the Opposition have no idea about how modern working families operate. Working from home arrangements are a part of private and public sector workplaces in the modern age, and you know, I think when you look at the announcements they’ve made to date – apart from opposing sensible, continued reforms in WGEA, they’ve announced they’re going to cut services, build $600 billion worth of nuclear power stations, and other ideas are being copied from the United States. I mean, that’s the world we’re in right now. And I think women have a right to feel at risk in terms of the agenda that we’ve been putting in place and the one that we want to move driving forward.
JOURNALIST: Minister and I guess for Ms. Wooldrige as well. You were pointing how this is obviously different to Same Job Same Pay which has been the law for a very long time. But there’s a little bit of distrortion definitely in the public discourse well the gender has closed because it’s illegal to pay people a differerent wage for the same job. Do you think that there’s a legitimate misunderstanding in the community about what the gener pay gap actually is? Or do you think there’s some bad-faith distortion going on?
GALLAGHER: I think most women understand the gender pay gap pretty well, because it's something that's existed for most women through their working life. But yeah, I mean, it's up to us to explain, again, what factors contribute to the gender pay gap. So, it's about women's representation in the organisation, how many women you have working, where they're working, what sort of arrangements they’re under, whether it be bonuses and other kind of arrangements that get done between the employer. All those factor into the gender pay gap. But I think most women understand it, even if they don't understand all the technical aspects. It means they're often dudded in terms of income and I think there's an expectation that government does what it can to make sure that that gap is closing.
WOOLDRIDGE: Can I also say, we see the discourse has actually shifted even over the last twelve months with the publishing of employee agenda pay gaps. And WGEA – we work very hard to educate people, but the media conversation has definitely progressed. And we're very much focusing this time on, well, what are you doing about it? And you say you've got more men at high paying positions? Yes, that's the driver of the gender pay gap. So, what are you doing about it? And the conversation is progressing. I think there's clearly some people who choose not to accept that definition, but they're clearly quite distinct and they're measuring two different things. So, we'll continue to educate employers in the broader community about the differences, but there clearly is a gender pay gap and the way that it's measured is very clear, and that's what we need to close. We need to drive those compositional pay differences.
JOURNALIST: Jane Hume gave an example of a public servant who was working full-time from home but who was traveling around Australia in their campervan and was often uncontactable. Do you have any concerns that there are people in the public service misusing working from home arrangements?
GALLAGHER: Yes, I did notice that there was an anecdotal description of someone who called the office to say this was happening to someone they knew. So, I would say, if there is evidence of that particular scenario, she should be at least providing it to me. Because there are arrangements in place that would ensure that that behaviour is not acceptable, and those have existed under governments of all persuasions. But let's just say that that particular cameo was pretty light on detail. There is a few – you know, someone rings an office and says something, therefore, it's a fact. I have asked – because these arrangements under the enterprise agreement have been, you know, they've been in operation for about a year now – I've asked the Public Service Commissioner about a month ago, or it might be slightly longer, to give me a report on how it's working and across what agencies. I'm now the Government Services Minister, for example. And I've spent a bit of time in Queensland visiting Services Australia outlets, call centres, places like that. And I've been told by supervisors, if they weren't able to provide flexible working arrangements or working from home arrangements, for some of the time for their employees, they wouldn't have been able to recruit to positions. Because it is a competitive market for labour and those working from home arrangements are pretty standard across the economy now. So, I've asked for that report and that will give us an insight into where it's working well, how employees feeling, how managers are feeling about it. And I think it's routine that we do that as part of the enterprise bargaining arrangements policy.
JOURNALIST: Minister, you mentioned some policies are copied from the US. There’s obviously been a pushback against equality policies with the new administration. Are you worried that pushback against DEI could spread to Australia or has already spread to Australia?
GALLAGHER: Well, we’re certainly seeing that from the Opposition, I would say. I think they’re seeing that in a very political frame, as opposed to, making decisions based on good policy in the interests of people in the country. We are supportive of a diverse workplace. We think the public service should lead in some of these areas, we think our services are better when they are delivered with, by a community that represents the community that they are there to serve. And that means you have people who have a disability, you have people from non-English speaking backgrounds, you have First Nations Australians. We know, and again, I’m seeing it first-hand now as I’m travelling around Services Australia – because they have such a large footprint, they’re in virtually every community – how important it is to have people who reflect the community they’re there to serve. We strongly support that. We don’t think we need some of those political directions imported from the US into Australia. We will always stand up for what the right thing to do is, and I think we’ve been proud of the record that the public service particularly – which is the area we have responsibility – has shown in recent times. I’d also say on working from home, I saw Peter Dutton’s press conference where he said this is all about public servants in Canberra. So yeah, always has a good old kick at the national capital, that’s almost expected from him. But the reality is two-thirds of the public service live outside the ACT. Many of them would have some sort of working from home arrangements in place, and it allows us – and I have spoken to Secretaries, departmental heads – to employ people from regional and rural parts of Australia to work for the Australian Government. Again, representing the communities they serve. So, this idea that this tough act, that you direct everyone to get back to work in Canberra, is absolute rubbish. This is something that works across the country and it allows people to join a public service where that opportunity might not have existed for them before.
JOURNALIST: Slightly different topic. The Economic Inclusion Committee that advised the Government on the adequacy of Jobseeker and other payments, there’s a legislative requirement that that report or that advice is released 14 days prior to a Budget. That would fall on March 11, early next week. Will that report be released on or before early next week?
GALLAGHER: Well, the legislation will be followed. This is a matter that falls under Minister Rishworth and the Treasurer’s portfolio, but I think the legislation is clear around timeframes.
JOURNALIST: Minister, is there any appetite from Government to expand the number of businesses captured by the gender pay gap reporting? Because I think it’s capped at above 100 employees for each business. Is there any appetite to go below that? And Ms Wooldridge, are there any deficiencies in the data given that those businesses with less than 100 employees aren’t captured by the data?
GALLAGHER: On whether we would go below 100, that isn’t something that we’re contemplating at the moment. We think the next stage of logical reforms is to focus on big employers and setting of targets and how they intend to reach those targets. They’re the ones that Peter Dutton is stopping in the Senate, so, just to give you a little taste of what a Peter Dutton government might do, we’re seeing that. He’s opposed to that sensible reform, but we’re not looking at lowering the level of employees covered.
WOOLDRIDGE: And the review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act canvassed this exact question. We’re very supportive that it stays at 100 or more employees. We understand that there is a burden with reporting, and it takes time and effort – absolutely important and fundamental that it’s pitched at the right level with employers with 100 or more employees, to be able to capture that data. And it means that we do have 5.3 million employees covered by our dataset, which is a very comprehensive part of our economy and we’re able to then work with them in terms of driving the change. And just in context, so, for 500 or more, where additional requirements apply, we actually capture 25 per cent of employers and 75 per cent of employees. So, we do capture so many employees by particularly focusing on those large businesses for additional change.
JOURNALIST: Minister, just on work from home again, figures show that almost double the number of public servants are working from home compared to the private sector, 61 per cent compared to 36 per cent. What do you think that disparity shows? Does that show that there are too many public servants with working from home arrangements, or that the private sector should catch up? And if I may on a completely different subject, the UK has decided to open up frozen Russian assets to provide more defence support for Ukraine, to free up those frozen assets. Is that something that the Australian Government is also considering or has been asked to consider?
GALLAGHER: I don’t have anything further to add other than the Prime Minister’s made it very clear that we support President Zelensky and Ukraine. We’ve been a big supporter to provide resources to them, to allow them to defend their country. And obviously, we keep matters about further support under active consideration at all times, but I don’t have anything further to add in relation to your specific question. In terms of the working from home arrangements, I would imagine some of that reflects the makeup of those jobs. So, what jobs people are in in the private sector, adds to the disparity, and the fact that I think in the public sector in particular, we are trying to ensure that there are flexible working arrangements as a way of ensuring that we can attract and retain people in employment in the public service for what we don’t have on pay. The public service often has to compete on conditions of employment. So, I would think, and Mary might have some more information on this than me, but the nature of the work performed by the private sector would contribute to that, i.e. you have to be present in your role in your workplace, whether it’s in construction or retail, for example. But I have asked, because the nature of work is changing across the economy, I have asked for the Public Service Commissioner to complete that report, because I do think it’s incumbent on employers to make sure that where those arrangements exist, that they are working both for the institution as well as the employees. The feedback I get, and this isn’t Canberra-based as much as Mr Dutton would like it to be, the feedback I get from managers and from individual employees is positive. It allows them to balance their other responsibilities and still perform their work. But I think we need to stay across it and make sure that it, you know, it’s working for everybody. I’d also like to just clarify – I see I think Senator Humes saying that employees have a right to demand these arrangements. That is not correct. The Enterprise Agreement allows an employee to request the ability to work from home. It is still on the employer whether or not they agree to that, and it has to meet operational requirements of the workplace. So, this idea that you can just rock up to your boss and say, this is what I’m going to do, is simply not correct. So, I just wanted to correct that, too.
WOOLDRIDGE: One thing that I might add, roughly, the order of magnitude is about half of all jobs do require that face-to-face presence. Nursing, healthcare, social assessments is another good example, big industry, lots of people require that face-to-face in the private sector. Roughly half of all jobs don’t have an option, which is why other sorts of flexibility are important to factor into that as well.
JOURNALIST: On provision within the EBA specifically, Senator Hume has said that they want to do this within the existing frameworks. Does the EBA as it stands currently allow for that proposal to occur?
GALLAGHER: Well, it’s unclear what the Opposition are saying. If you listen to Senator Hume people are going to be frog-marched back into the office day one. Her leader was slightly less forceful in the language he used this morning, but the EBA is clear. Employees have a right to request working from home arrangements and employers have the right to approve or not approve that. Now, if Senator Hume is saying that she’s going to override the EBA or direct every Secretary in the department not to allow working from home arrangements, that’s a matter for her to explain how that happens. You know, ministers don’t employ people in the public service. That’s covered by the Enterprise Agreement. But I’ll leave it to them to explain their latest import from the US. We believe the EBA sets out a fair way of regulating those arrangements and also, it’ll be interesting to see this report I get from the APSC Commissioner about exactly how it is operating in those big frontline service agencies I’m particularly interested in around the country.
JOURNALIST: Just back to the gender pay gap, we’ve done a report today from the Regional Australia Institute that shows that a lot of jobs actually keep more of what you earn if you move to the regions. However, in the report, it shows that that really only applies to men and in fact if women did the same job in the regions, they’d actually earn less. Is this an issue that you’re aware of? Is this regional-city divide something that is perhaps a bit bigger than what we’re realising in the data today?
WOOLDRIDGE: So, it’s a great question and it is something that we’ve had a very small amount of data historically, but we now do have information about location of employee, which will enable us to do more of the analysis, which will be to come now that we’ve been able to publish gender pay gaps today. But there is a penalty for working beyond the metropolitan boundaries in terms of the earnings of both men and women and a gender pay gap that’s driven as well. So, I look forward to having a look at the detail of that report and we will be in a position to be able to publish more information based on the WGEA dataset.
JOURNALIST: You’ve both been long-term advocates in this area both at state and federal levels and the parliament. Both worked on different sides of the political aisle. Do you have any reflections on why your male colleagues have not been as vocal in this area, in which you’ve been very vocal?
GALLAGHER: I can speak for my side. I think, certainly working with the PM, I think he’s been pretty vocal about this. He talks about the gender pay gap often. He was very clear when he appointed me to this role that it was to drive women’s economic equality through the centre of government, and that’s why he put the two portfolios together. I think in our organisation also, it helps when you’ve got the first majority women government in Australia’s history, which is hard to believe that it’s 2025, but that’s the case. And I think all of my male colleagues, I often say, there’s no argument about whether we push for equality in our party room. It’s front and centre, it’s accepted and it’s really how you get there and we have the support of all of the men in the room on that. But I’ll let you speak, Mary, about your experience.
WOOLDRIDGE: You won’t be surprised for me to say that as a public servant, I actually don’t comment on political parties or political policy. I have some longstanding points on the record in relation to how things can change from my previous part of my career. But I’ll leave it at that.
GALLAGHER: Very diplomatic, Mary, very diplomatic.
JOURNALIST: Minister, the ABS has reported that the current accounts deficit in 2024 blew out to $52.4 billion, which is the largest since 2016. Is the Government planning to pay for increased government spending with bracket creep? Is that an intentional plan of government?
GALLAGHER: Well, you’ll see all of the decisions the Government’s made through our Budget. And I would say that it’ll continue the path that we have outlined in our previous three budgets, which is we find a range of ways to ensure that we are able to invest and prioritise those cost-of-living assistance, but other important investments in health and aged care and education today. A big announcement is a mix of savings, reprioritisation, paying down debt, one of the areas across the Government’s Budget, you’ll see more of that. You know, we did deliver a tax cut to every taxpayer including those who are earning under $45,000 who weren’t going to get a tax cut. And we lifted the thresholds and lowered the tax rates for a couple of brackets. And when you look at that, that’s been a good way of returning money to individuals through the tax system and we’ll have more to say on that as we progress through the next little while.
JOURNALIST: Just a quick question on a different topic, just about the Port of Darwin. There’s a meeting obviously this week with the Northern Territory government. Are there plans from the Federal Government to purchase the Port of Darwin or break that lease?
GALLAGHER: Well, I think we’ve been clear about some of the concerns we’ve had on that. And I note Senator Patterson out today seemingly blaming us for something that happened under the former government, where they didn’t raise any objections to that sale. You know, there’s meetings to be had and the conclusion of those, more information will be available.
JOURNALIST: Just on the Bill that’s currently before Parliament, when that went to a review in the Senate, it recommended stricter requirements around procurement and meeting those targets. Are you interested in introducing amendments to affect that recommendation?
GALLAGHER: We are looking at procurement as a way of again, using every lever available to government to ensure that we are shifting the dial for women. And so, we are looking at how we can record or basically understand a little bit more about how much procurement through government goes to women, or women-owned businesses. And so, we are looking at that, but that’s not part of that Bill. And that Bill is seemingly not getting through the Senate at the moment, so we’ve got a bit of work to do there. Again, if Peter Dutton cares about women and women and work and inequality, then I would say that today, he should say that he supports that Bill and go back to the position he’s had for the last few years. Thank you everybody, thanks for coming and thanks for your coverage as well.