Articles
Article, theage.com.au, 8/3/11
GOVERNOR-GENERAL Quentin Bryce has advocated the introduction of quotas to ensure more women are appointed as directors on the boards of Australian companies.
In comments that could reignite claims that she has crossed the line between her vice-regal role and politics, Ms Bryce said she believed affirmative action might be the only way to break the stranglehold of the ''old boys' network'' on Australian business.
''I believe the old boys' network is a powerful one,'' she said. ''No one gives up power and privilege willingly, do they?''
Senior Labor and Liberal figures last night backed her view. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change.
Appearing on the ABC's Q&A, Mr Hockey suggested a quota of 30 per cent would be reasonable.
Status of Women Minister Kate Ellis said the government would hold a audit in 18 months to gauge whether the number of women on boards had increased, and would take action if needed. Quotas were a last resort, but the government was leaving this option open.
Last year, women made up just 3 per cent of chief executives of the top 200 companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, and 8.4 per cent of board members. More than 100 of the top 200 companies had no women on their boards.
Ms Bryce - for decades a leading light in the Australian women's movement - said that while women had made huge progress since she became aware of widespread discrimination as a young barrister in the 1960s, progress had slowed, particularly at the highest levels.
Speaking to The Age on the eve of International Women's Day, Ms Bryce said: ''I think there's a very clear recognition and understanding that the progress of women in business at the very highest decision-making levels is too slow.
''This is a discussion that's going on in every country around the world.
''And a very interesting debate that surrounds it is about whether affirmative action should be taken… to take some positive steps to see that women are better represented on boards and at the highest decision-making levels. I support affirmative action. I support special measures when you need it.''
Asked to elaborate, Ms Bryce said: ''One of the things that is being discussed in Australia now … is whether or not there should be quotas for the representation of women on boards, and there are women who support that and there are others who don't … I believe that in certain circumstances quotas are a valid measure.''
The Governor-General said such a proposal ''sounds like a very radical notion, but it's not''.
She said there were many examples of such action around the world, citing ''education in the US'', where the national government had forced states to accept African Americans in the school system, and legislation in various countries to get more women in parliament.
Later in the interview, the Governor-General amended her definition of what should be done to reduce male domination to ''setting goals and targets''.
''The Australian way of affirmative action is setting goals and recognising discrimination and lack of opportunity and deciding to take action and setting some goals and targets. I guess I prefer that language to talking about quotas,'' she said.
Ms Bryce will spend International Women's Day at events dedicated to women who have worked and fought for the advancement of women.
Time has failed women; a quota may just ensure equal rights
Elizabeth Proust
The Age online, March 14, 2011
Board progress is slow, and at an executive level we are going backwards.
Unsurprisingly, the focus on and since International Women's Day has been on the slow rate of progress for women in this country, especially in corporate life.
When I started my career in the early 1980s I was told that the passage of time would solve the absence of women in senior roles in corporations. It has not. Two years ago, Catalyst, which surveys progress on this issue in the United States and Australia, indicated that at the current rate of change women would achieve equality with men in Australian boardrooms in 177 years.
Initiatives such as those by the Australian Institute of Company Directors to provide mentoring programs for women aspiring to be company directors, and the ASX Corporate Governance Council recommendations on diversity, are making some difference. The percentage of women on the top ASX 200 companies was 8.3 in 2009 and is now 11.2 as a result of such initiatives; for the top 100 companies it is now 14.1.
The ASX guidelines, which will require companies to disclose in their annual reports progress in achieving gender diversity objectives on an ''if not why not?'' basis, were announced late last year and are already forcing change. Annual reports, especially by those companies that have no women on their boards, will make interesting reading.
I am certainly looking forward to reading the reasons that will be put forward for companies' inability to find suitably qualified women.
Not all the news is positive: 92 of these top 200 companies have no women on their boards.
In fact, the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency census (October 2010) found that the percentage of boards without female directors went backwards last year - from 51 per cent to 54 per cent.
While some progress is being made at board level, little change is occurring at executive level in our companies. Indeed, in many cases things may be going backwards. This matters because while boards can set targets, monitor, and urge management to make changes, the day-to-day culture of any organisation is principally influenced by management, not the board.
To succeed in their careers, women need mentors (male and female), flexible working conditions when they have children, and better childcare arrangements. They also need their husbands/partners to be more involved in childcare and household tasks (but that's a whole other topic). Many men have recognised the need to mentor women and they are doing this. There is, however, a need to recognise unconscious biases (we all have them) and to accept that it is often easier to hire people like us (hence men hiring other men).
Having more diverse boards and senior management teams means less groupthink, with more diverse perspectives and opinions brought to bear to solve problems.
Neither our boards nor our senior executive ranks reflect their customer base, let alone the wider Australian community. Why would we confine our selection criteria (implicitly at least) to male, white Anglo-Saxons (ethnic and other forms of diversity are equally missing in corporate Australia today)?
This is no longer only an equity issue; it is a business issue. Why does the government (with our taxes) pay for the education of girls and women to tertiary level if only rare women are to succeed in our companies? Why recruit roughly equal numbers of women and men from universities if companies lose most of those women in the first 10 years, and only the men reach senior positions?
There is every reason for business to be concerned about the imposition of well meaning government initiatives, whether they are quotas for boards (as in Norway) or sanctions for companies not employing sufficient women (as recently proposed by Minister Ellis). Boards in many cases are rightly resisting the notion that government quotas or mandates will force them to appoint people who may not be the right fit. There are often unintended consequences when governments legislate in these areas.
But look at the facts: while there was a big focus on increasing women on Australian boards last year, with 25 per cent of all appointments being women, the figure at year end was only 11.2 per cent of all board positions in the ASX200 being held by women. In Norway, where the government in 2005 mandated a target of 40 per cent women for boards, women now make up 31 per cent of directors on their top boards. This change was only achieved because the government mandated it and has punitive measures in place for non-compliance.
While we each want to be seen to have achieved our career (and life) successes on our own merits, it is clear that many Australian companies have been too slow to adopt practices to recruit and promote women. It is far preferable for companies to devise their own plans that help them to develop diverse productive workplaces; but if we face quotas in the next few years, it will be because patience with the arguments about time passing, or merit promotion, have worn thin.
Quotas and other measures may well be the means by which the Australian government forces companies to ensure women have equal rights in the workplace - something I suspect we will still be discussing for many more International Women's Days.
Elizabeth Proust is a Melbourne-based company director and former head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet.
Feature Article
There is a big difference between non-discrimination (equal opportunity), a minimalist approach and having a pro-active approach to a diverse work force. In order for someone with a disability or for someone from another disadvantaged group to prove discrimination there has to be blatant and obvious reasons for discrimination. This needs to be clearly the reason for a person not to get the job.. read mor
Recently, ADDE was involved in the judging of the Diversity@Work 2010 Employment and Inclusion Awards: People with a Disability. This award recognises excellence in initiatives or programs related to the employment and inclusion of people with a disability. Peter Rickards, ADDE president, was a judge on the panel and stated how happy he was to once again have the opportunity to judge the nominations.. read more
ILO (International Labor Organisation) Employment Working Paper No. 43
A summary: We hear a lot about the costs of inclusion of people with disabilities - pensions, subsidies, services, access etc - but hardly anything about the costs of exclusion. The following report estimates the costs of exclusion from the world of work as between 3-5% of GDP: http://sebastian.buckup.de/4.html
While this study looks at ten low to middle income countries, the percentage is probably higher for countries like Australia.. read more
- The health and saety conundrum read more
- Australia signs the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities read more
- Some personal remarks about disability By Roger Beale (AO) read more
- Rethinking Australia’s employment services
Summary of this essay, by Lisa Fowkes (board Member, Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS)), presented at the Whitlam Institute, March 2011. Edited by Kathy Leitch read more
- UN Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities.
A summary by Kathy Leitch read more
Our mission is to increase employment opportunities for
people with disabilities and from diverse backgrounds
in Australia. For those of you who are not aware we were
officially formed on September 7, 2005 at Victorian Council
of Social Services (VCOSS).
ADDE promotes pro-active employment
policies and practices for disadvantaged groups including
people with disabilities, mature age workers, people from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds as well
as indigenous people. People who fall into more than one
of these categories are recognised as being even more
disadvantaged. Therefore, we see a greater need for a
change of attitude and awareness.