Posts

Choice Is Not a Gender Pay Gap

,

It’s been illegal to pay a woman less than a man for the same job for several decades. Yet the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) continues to release “gender pay gap” reports that refuse to compare like-for-like roles. They use raw averages that ignore the reality of human choice, i.e. the fact that many women choose to prioritise family and motherhood over “climbing the corporate ladder” or working 80-hour weeks.

This isn’t about equality; it’s a globalist agenda using flawed statistics to devalue the family unit and sow division between men and women.

We need facts, not manufactured grievances.

It’s time to stop the spin and start respecting the choices Australian families actually make.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Now, we’ve discussed the fact that it’s been illegal to pay men and women differently when they are doing the same job for 60 years, the fact that your gender pay gap data doesn’t even compare people working in the same jobs and the fact that you can’t achieve gender equality on your own measurements at your own agency. We’ve done that at length in these hearings, yet just days ago you released more data and didn’t include any of these caveats in your commentary to the media. Why are you presenting Australians with data without context?

Ms Wooldridge: Senator, I assume your question is to me. We very clearly provide clarification on the information that we are providing when we release our scorecard. I think we’ve now done 11 scorecards over the years, and the data expands, but consistently the gender pay gap methodology has been the same, which is average remuneration for women and men and a comparison between the two. It doesn’t seek to do an equal pay for equal work comparison in the like-for-like jobs. In fact the data that employers report to us does not enable us to do that calculation. If there’s unfair pay for equal work, that’s dealt with by the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman. Our remit is to calculate different data, which is the gender pay gap, looking at those averages across the nation, across industries and within employers.

Senator ROBERTS: That—as we’ve discussed and I have a strong opinion on—is completely misleading. It doesn’t show a gender pay gap. You’re taking the easy way out and just using averages. It’s misleading. Can I confirm that you still haven’t achieved gender equality at your agency. What’s the latest update on average earnings for men and women at the Workplace Gender Equality Agency?

Ms Wooldridge: To reiterate, as I did last time, the gender pay gap calculation we use is an internationally used methodology. It’s used by governments and nations around the world to do comparisons, and we believe that, being very clear what the methodology is, it is a valid mechanism to make the comparisons. We don’t pretend that it is a like-for-like comparison. We’re very clear on what it measures, that it’s a proxy for gender equality and that it’s a mechanism to then look in more detail for where the inequality lies. We do encourage employers. As you’ve said, under the law they need to do equal pay for equal work. That is a part of it, but it’s not the whole amount. I have no further figures to update you with from when we talked about this about six weeks ago in terms of WGEA’s numbers. We do have staff changes from time to time, which changes the proportion of men and women in our agency and the gender pay gap calculation, but what we talked about six weeks ago is still the same case.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re using flawed methodology to distort and misrepresent because it’s international, even though it’s not accurate, and it’s definitely not statistically valid for presenting your case. Let’s move on—

Senator Gallagher: No, Senator Roberts. I accept that that is your view that you are putting; that is not a view that is shared by the government, me or any witness here this morning.

Senator ROBERTS: So you support the inaccurate use of data—statistically invalid methods?

Senator Gallagher: I reject that it is inaccurate. I accept that you and I disagree on at.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, so do I. I’m going to quote Janet Albrechtsen, a very successful woman, who said: The gender activists and their supporters have concocted a shallow stereotype about women in order to complain about a gender pay gap. They assume we want to work like men. I didn’t. Millions of other women don’t either. There is no shame in that. We put aside, slowed down, switched careers—and big pay packets—to raise our children. Motherhood is not the only driver, either. And I’m sitting next to a woman who proudly is a mother and said so in her first speech just a few months ago.

Senator Gallagher: I think you’ll find there are plenty of—

CHAIR: There are plenty of proud mothers sitting around this table, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. Thank you. I’m so pleased to hear people come in. Janet Albrechtsen continued: From the instant they receive their HSC or ATAR scores, and for the rest of their lives, many women appear to make very different choices to men. What do you say to that?

Senator Gallagher: I’ll jump in first. Everyone is entitled to their view on this. We live in a country where we have free speech. People have a view about data and policy, and sometimes that differs. I think that’s probably pretty reasonable. The view I take is that, in our striving for gender equality, we should enable everyone to have legitimate choices, and should that be that they take time out to care for their children then that’s fantastic. We shouldn’t penalise them for that, but there should be a whole range of choices available to men and women equally. I think there’s plenty of evidence that shows that there is inequality based on gender across our economy. Where that exists we should be trying to close it to ensure that you, Senator Roberts, if you were a child today, and Senator Collins, if she were a child today, would have exactly the same opportunities. That’s what our policy is about.

Senator ROBERTS: Hear, hear—and we should be presenting the facts as they are. Have you considered that for your data to show a zero per cent difference between gender we would have to have women knocking off work at 5 pm, giving birth at night and being back at work by nine the next morning? You’re making no allowance for families who want to take time away from work to raise their children and not just be a cog in a corporate machine their entire lives.

Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t agree with that either. I think in this report it showed that there had been an increase in fathers taking time for those shared caring roles. That was about a three per cent increase on the previous year’s data. That, again, is a welcome move. Shared parenting shouldn’t be considered controversial. But we haven’t given men the same opportunities to have those caring arrangements in the past, and that is changing. I think there is growing acceptance that that is a legitimate choice for men in their careers as well. So I’d don’t accept the assertion, but I think some of the data in this shows that we are making progress.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I want to take up that last point. There’s a minister for women, but there’s no minister for men. I personally think there should be no minister for any particular gender, but surely if there’s one for women there must be one for men?

Senator Gallagher: Senator Whitten was in here earlier. He asked exactly that question, and I responded. He read out a series of statistics that he used around men’s health in particular. We have, for the first time in any federal government, a Special Envoy for Men’s Health, Dan Repacholi, who’s doing an amazing job. If you read any of his speeches and look at the work he’s doing across the country in enlivening this area of policy, it shows that the government considers this an area for further work. Again, the more we involve men and boys in the discussions that we have around the inequality that exists—and it may be inequality for men—and the more we drive gender equality, the better the country will be—if we are all treated equally, which is what we’re trying to work on.

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you entirely, and that means presenting the data in an accurate fashion, not misrepresenting it. I notice—and I’m not saying all of the people in this room are with your department—there are no males here with you.

Senator Gallagher: There are men who work in the Office for Women.

Senator ROBERTS: Very, very few. There are nine women in the room supporting you, including yourself,
but no males.

Senator Gallagher: Yes, and any man that wants to work at the Office for Women is more than welcome. People have free choice about where they work as well, and they make those choices. I would say more women apply for positions within the Office for Women than men, but there are men, and they are valued colleagues.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any truth to the notion that some people hold, including myself—and you’re saying you’re following an international measurement standard, even though it’s wrong—that this is part of a globalist agenda to destroy the family, put down women and sow division?

Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t accept that at all. As I said, everything we’re doing in this space is something I think you would agree with, which is how we ensure that a little girl in the hospital down the road who’s born today and a little boy who’s born today grow up with the same opportunities, whether it be the education choices they have, the job choices they have, and how they manage family life and those caring responsibilities. We want everyone to be treated equally. That’s what this is about.

Senator ROBERTS: I agree, so why are you using data that misrepresents the situation?

Senator Gallagher: I’ve already addressed that. I don’t agree with the assertions. I accept that you disagree with us, but we think the data is robust and sound and that it’s important data to report.

/by

Equality Means Fairness – Not Quotas

,

At Senate Estimates, I raised key questions about workplace gender equality and family policy. I asked the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to state executive salaries — the head earns $313,000.

I highlighted to them that the agency itself has a gender pay gap in favour of women — women earn $111,746 vs men $106,141, and that 17 women hold executive roles compared to just 2 men.

My message: Equality should mean fairness and choice — not ideology or quotas.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My questions are entirely to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. Can everyone who is executive level or senior executive service at the desk state their salary please.  

Ms Wooldridge: I, as the accountable authority, have a remuneration tribunal determination, with a total remuneration of $313,000.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. What is a woman? It’s not a trick question.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is the agency in charge of workplace gender—  

CHAIR: No, this is a political experience here that none of us want to listen to.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to be getting into figures in a minute, so I need to be sure. What is a woman?  

Ms Wooldridge: I’ll refer to our act, which does define a woman. This is the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, and it says: woman means a member of the female sex irrespective of age.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does a man who identifies as a woman count in your statistics for women—in looking at your staffing statistics, for example?  

Ms Wooldridge: I’ve defined a woman as per the act, and we apply the act in terms of the operation of our agency and our reporting.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean a man who identifies as a woman is not a woman in your staff classifications?  

Ms Wooldridge: Senator, once again, I’ll refer you to the definition under the act.  

Senator ROBERTS: In your application of that definition, is a man who claims to be a woman, identifies as a woman, listed as male or female?  

Ms Wooldridge: Perhaps it would assist to clarify that, in terms of reporting to the agency, the employers who are relevant employers—with 100 or more employees—are required to report to us every year. They are asked, for their employees, who are men and who are women. We also collect, voluntarily, data for people who identify as non-binary. So employers have those three categories on which they can report their employee data to us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Men, women and non-binary? Okay, thank you. In response to question on notice 97, you’ve reported the salary for women and men employed in your department. By the way, that figure shows that the average salary for women in your department is $111,746 and the average salary for men is $106,141. That’s a five per cent pay difference, so you have a pay gap against men.  

Ms Wooldridge: We have a gender pay gap that’s negative. That’s right.  

Senator WHITEAKER: Chair, on a point of order, I’m just not sure how the question is relevant to the work of the department.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re not sure?  

Senator WHITEAKER: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is the Workplace Gender Equality Agency.  

CHAIR: Yes, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m checking to make sure they’re working—  

CHAIR: I do have a level of sympathy with Senator Whiteaker’s frustration here at what appears to be heading down an overtly political and somewhat offensive pathway. Ms Wooldridge, I would encourage you to only answer the questions that you feel to be relevant to your agency and relevant to Senate estimates.  

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, what is offensive about the question I just asked? This woman is in charge of informing—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we all know where you’re going.  

Senator ROBERTS: Oh, do you? Okay, up to you.  

Ms Wooldridge: So, yes, we have a negative gender pay gap. Eight per cent of employers that report to us have a negative gender pay gap, which reflects an average total remuneration slightly higher or higher for women than men. But we do know that the vast majority of employers in Australia do have a gender pay gap in favour of men, which is a positive gender pay gap. That’s a normal calculation that we make for employers in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: You have 38 full-time workers and three part-time; 29 female, 11 male and one nonbinary. With your gender pay gap favouring women, doesn’t it show how ridiculous the entire concept of trying to equalise aggregate wage is?  

Ms Wooldridge: We’ve discussed before the definition of the gender pay gap. We believe that it’s a very valid measure as a proxy for gender equality. It’s used very effectively; it’s used internationally—around the world. Each individual employer has a different result, and we encourage them to reflect on their results and look at how the gender pay gap can be narrowed to ensure we have a greater equality in our workplaces.  

Senator ROBERTS: Reading your staffing breakdown, from the question on notice, you had 17 women employed at executive level or higher. I understand executive level starts at $120,000 a year. There are 17 women employed at that level and above and only two men. Is that your definition of gender equality.  

CHAIR: That could only be said by a man, right?  

Senator ROBERTS: I happen to have been educated by my mother.  

Senator Wong: Unless Ms Wooldridge wants to, I might just respond briefly, Senator. I understand you have a view about this agency. You’re entitled to that. We disagree with it.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is my view, Senator Wong?  

Senator Wong: Alright, maybe you don’t have a view. I was inferring it from your questions. But could I say this: I think the proposition that, because in this one agency there are more women on high salaries than men, the gender pay gap is not relevant is a very odd one. We have ABS statistics which still show a gender pay gap of 11½ per cent. WGEA statistics, which use different methodology—I think that was the evidence before—show it in excess of 20 per cent. It’s not the only way in which we look at equality, but it does tell us something. It tells us that our daughters are likely to earn less than our sons. That’s not merit based, and there are reasons for that. Some of those reasons may be valid and some of them may not. So it is one of the ways in which we try to improve the economic equality of our society, and I would argue it’s of benefit to everybody. Yes, it benefits women, but I think it is of benefit to all of us if we work to remove those barriers to the full participation of women and men in the workplace.  

Senator ROBERTS: I would agree with you. I do agree with you, Senator Wong. In fact, I’ll pay you a compliment; I hope it’s well received. You are one of the outstanding performers in the Senate. I don’t agree with some of your policies, statements and values, but you’re one of the outstanding performers. You’re not equal to everyone else in the Senate; you’re far superior to many. That’s no doubt.  

Senator Wong: I don’t know quite what to do with this, Senator Roberts. This is probably not good for either of us!  

Senator ROBERTS: No, it’s certainly good for me, because we compliment people when they deserve it, and you deserve that recognition. My mother told me the sad mistake is for women to claim they’re equal, because in many ways women are far, superior to men—far, far superior. That’s on the record.  

Senator Wong: There you go.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we need to wrap up.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not just because my party leader’s a female.  

CHAIR: I will just advise you that we’re going to break for lunch in two minutes, Senator Roberts. Those two minutes are all yours.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The replacement family rate is on average 2.2 babies per couple. That inevitably leads to women being out of work for pregnancy just so we don’t go extinct in our species. What adjustment do you make to calculations to account for the fact that we do need to have babies and it’s a good thing, or Australia goes extinct?  

Ms Wooldridge: The gender pay gap is calculated by looking at average salaries between men and women in an employer, in an industry or in the nation as a whole. One of the things we do know, though, is that a very significant portion of the gender pay gap is attributable to the time women take out of the workforce to care for family and responsibilities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Ms Wooldridge: So the gender pay gap is reflective of that, but there are many things that employers can do to minimise the impact of that time out of the workplace in order to encourage women who need to, or want to, to be able to engage with work as well as manage caring responsibilities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Acknowledging what you just said, Ms Woolridge, isn’t it true that, for the gender pay gap to be completely erased, we have to either stop women having babies or have them work the day before and the day they give birth?  

Ms Wooldridge: I disagree with you, Senator. In fact, there are many employers who do have zero gender pay gap and who are able to create that equal and fair experience at work. But we do acknowledge that, yes, there are some aspects of the gender pay gap that are attributable to the time out of the workforce, and I think we’re aspiring to minimise the gender pay gap so that those inequalities at work are removed and people do have an equal experience.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, Chair.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we are going to wrap up now, because we’re already running late. I can come back to you after the break if required.  

Senator Wong: We’d be happy with one more question.  

CHAIR: Just one?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. It’s for the minister, and I thank you, Minister. Mothering is the nation’s most important job. The critical years for formation of both character and intellect are from birth to six, and the mother shapes that enormously. Granted, for some couples, the mother works and the father stays home or whatever. That’s a choice. Women and men deserve choice. The tax system eliminates choice, and mass immigration drives down wages. What are your view on income splitting as a policy to adopt?  

Senator Wong: That is probably not for this group, but the government is supportive of a progressive taxation system. We are also supportive of putting in place policies that contribute to stronger families and parenting. You have seen support for parents. You’ve seen what we’ve done in the areas of health, child care and education.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, from a personal perspective, as a single mother, I had an extraordinarily flexible employer. I must say it does make a fundamental difference to your life to have an employer who understands the value of giving you space to bring up your children and equally deliver on your responsibilities at work.  

Senator ROBERTS: Of course, and an enlightened employer hires people of all kinds of backgrounds for that very reason. 

/by

The Gender Pay Gap is a Myth – Only Exists in DODGY Statistics

,

I questioned the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) about their claims that almost every company in Australia is paying women less than men. Their data doesn’t compare how much a man and a woman working the same job at the same company gets paid. Its completely misleading and doesn’t account for choices, preferences, hours worked, overtime, danger, or the fact that paying women less than men has been illegal for decades, as the WGEA admitted to me.

With 78% of the workforce at the WGEA being female, it sounds like they shouldn’t be lecturing anyone in the country on gender equality while they completely fail to achieve it themselves.

Transcript

CHAIR: Yes. Senator ROBERTS.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My questions are fairly simple. It is illegal to pay men and women differently because of their sex in Australia, isn’t it?  

Senator Gallagher: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: How long has that been the case?  

Senator Gallagher: It has been since the late sixties. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is the data you publish on comparing male pay versus female pay on a like-for-like job basis?  

Ms Wooldridge: No, it very clearly is not and it doesn’t intend to be.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you could, for example, publish airline employees. The majority of pilots are men at the moment—women are increasing—and the majority of hostesses are female, so it would show it skewed towards the men, because pilots are paid more than hostesses.  

Ms Wooldridge: That’s absolutely right; that is the gender pay gap.  

Senator Gallagher: That’s the point.  

Senator ROBERTS: How is that the point?  

Ms Wooldridge: That is what the gender pay gap calculates. It is not seeking to calculate a like-for-like comparison. The definition is—let’s say we are doing an average gender pay gap—the average salaries of all men and the average salaries of all women and a comparison between the two. That is the simple, clear definition of the gender pay gap.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not a like-for-like basis. It doesn’t accommodate hours. Men tend to work more hours and tend to be in more dangerous jobs, generally.  

Ms Wooldridge: Our calculation annualises part-time or part-year earnings to an annualised full-time equivalent basis so that it does account and allow for the differences and make a fair comparison for people who are working non-full-time versus full-time—that is very clear—but it is not a like-for-like comparison, and it doesn’t seek to make that comparison.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it then misleading?  

Ms Wooldridge: Not when the definition of what we are calculating is very clear. We are very clear on what the gender pay gap seeks to calculate. As I said earlier, it is not a perfect measure; it is a proxy for gender equality. With the clarity of what the definition is then people can understand what the percentage reflects.  

Senator ROBERTS: So if a male pilot and a female pilot had similar experience—number of years—similar qualifications, they would be paid the same; they would have to be.  

Ms Wooldridge: Well, certainly that is the law and our expectation. I’m sure the government’s expectation is that companies do fulfil that requirement of equal pay for equal work because it has been the law for more than 50 years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Right, so where is the gender pay gap?  

Ms Wooldridge: The gender pay gap is driven by a combination of the composition of the workforce and the relativities of the pay for that composition.  

Senator ROBERTS: But isn’t it erroneous to say that women are paid less than men if, in fact, for equivalent jobs on a like-for-like basis and hours worked, they are paid the same?  

Ms Wooldridge: We are very clear in our communications that we will say women are paid less on average than men by an employer, in an industry, in an occupation, when we describe the gender pay gap.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have been to some pretty advanced statistics classes, but you don’t have to do that to realise that averages can hide a lot. Averages can misinform and mislead.  

Ms Wooldridge: Absolutely, so, once again, the gender pay gap is a proxy that commences a conversation about what is driving those differences. We talked earlier with Senator Hume about how the employer statement gives employers a mechanism by which they can then say what is driving the differences in their composition or in their pay and remuneration rates, and what things they are undertaking to address those differences.  

Senator ROBERTS: So are you trying to drive more female pilots and more male hosts?  

Ms Wooldridge: I don’t usually comment on individual companies, but Qantas, after the publishing of its gender pay gaps, did announce a policy to attract more female pilots into its ranks as a reflection of those very high-paying roles being currently very male dominated.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the gender pay gap name-and-shame list that you publish doesn’t account for the amount of hours actually worked or overtime, does it?  

Ms Wooldridge: As I said, Senator, what we published was the median salary for women and the median salary for men or total remuneration and base salary—we did two calculations and the per cent differences between the two. That was the data that was published for each employer. 

Senator Gallagher: It is not a name-and-shame list; it’s the data that is available to WGEA. People choose to use it how they choose to use it, but it’s information that we believe is an important to support the work that’s being done to narrow the gender pay gap in the country.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s really a tool to use to push an agenda? That’s a-g-e-n-d-a not ‘a gender’.  

Ms Wooldridge: It’s an internationally used measure around the world. As I said, the UK government six years ago started publishing gender pay gaps of their employers using a similar methodology. It’s one that has been used in Australia for the last 15 or 20 years in terms of its calculation. It’s a reflection of the relationship between what men and women earn and their responsibilities in the workforce.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, it will only be that—a reflection of what men and women earn and their responsibilities—if it were like for like, and it’s not like for like. It’s misleading.  

Ms Wooldridge: I suppose I don’t agree with that, Senator.  

Senator Gallagher: I don’t either.  

Ms Wooldridge: The calculation is very clear—the methodology used for the calculation—and we are very clear that it doesn’t seek to do a like-for-like. In fact, one thing that we’re very pleased about is that the conversation has moved from a like-for-like comparison—because that is the law, and it has been the law for 50 years, and companies should be complying with the law—to actually get to the differences about the structural inequalities that are driving the fact that we have a gender pay gap, as calculated and as described, across both the nation and in every industry across Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do we have a gender pay gap, which implies that we are paying women less than men for the same job, or do we have a gap in skills and preferences for work?  

Senator Gallagher: Well, women workers do earn less on average than men, the male workers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not like for like in Australia.  

Senator Gallagher: Nobody other than you is suggesting that we are measuring like for like. Nobody is.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the way—  

Senator Gallagher: Ms Wooldridge and I, when we do media on this, make it very clear what the gender pay gap consists of. Nobody is saying that equal pay is not being offered to women—although in some cases we’ve got rid of pay secrecy clauses and some of the other arrangements that did, I think, disadvantage women in that regard. This is about giving a snapshot in industries, in business, about what is actually happening with their workforce. The facts are the facts. And yes, we are pushing an agenda. The agenda is to make sure that women get the same opportunities as men through the work that they do, including dealing with the very gender segregated nature of our labour force.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you concerned that if you actually published real comparable data about how much men and women working the same job at the same company get paid, it would show there is no gender pay gap, because it’s illegal and there would be no need for your agency, so you’d be wound down? I’m serious.  

Ms Wooldridge: No.  

Senator Gallagher: Nothing would give me more pleasure.  

Ms Wooldridge: I’m not the slightest bit concerned about that. In fact, what companies say to us is that they do work hard on the like-for-like pay, and they have to remain vigilant each and every year because discrepancies arise. It’s not a set and forget, and they do work hard on it. That’s absolutely fundamental. It’s a component of the gender pay gap, but it’s not the whole gender pay gap. We need to look beyond like-for-like pay to understand what else is driving the inequalities that mean men and women have a 21.7 per cent differential in their average total remuneration. 

Senator ROBERTS: Right, so give me a hand here. You would agree that men and women are not the same and that their differences are things to cherish. If you are a company that employs only men, you are missing out on the talents of women. So isn’t it better, rather than distort the figures, to somehow encourage companies to employ women for the same job?  

Senator Gallagher: Nobody is distorting the figures—  

Senator ROBERTS: But it’s not like for like.  

Senator Gallagher: The figures are the information that’s provided by the employer to WGEA, which WGEA then publish. Nobody is distorting figures. I think employers on the whole, including some I’ve spoken to since their data being published, are interested in this because they see the benefits that come from a more genderbalanced workforce, for sure. But we’re also dealing with a lot of history and choices made about what jobs suit what gender. There’s a whole range of things going on here that WGEA’s publication of this information supports further action on so that we are able to deal with the different components that lead to the gender pay gap in the country.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the gender breakdown of your agency’s workforce?  

Ms Wooldridge: At the moment, we’re 78 per cent women and 22 per cent men. We continue to seek to improve that balance in our recruitment processes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are familiar with the gender pay gap. Why is it so difficult, Minister, for men’s groups and shelters—this is not to do with welfare payments or mental health and such—to get support for mental health for men? Men are stigmatised in that field.  

Senator Gallagher: In the area of mental health?  

Senator ROBERTS: Mental health support, shelters—it’s almost impossible to get the money for men.  

Senator Gallagher: I think that’s probably a question that we can deal with in health when we get there, because they would be the providers. I absolutely agree that responses and support for mental health need to be targeted to particular demographics. Men certainly experience mental health concerns at very high levels. I think there are targeted supports and interventions tailored to men, but health would be the obvious area for that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll be asking Health and other places. It’s just that I know men’s groups find it very, very difficult to get support, whereas women’s groups find it very easy to get support.  

Senator Gallagher: I think both women’s and men’s groups would argue that they are after more support. We’ve been going through that with Senator Waters this morning. 

/3 Comments/by

Government Doxxing Australian Companies Over Gender Pay

,

It’s ironic that Labor can suddenly define what a woman is when they want to talk about a gender pay gap.

By publicly sending out information on 5000 Australian companies and claiming they’ve failed to sufficiently pay women in comparison with men, the government has maliciously misrepresented the companies and is effectively doxxing them.

The devil is in the details on this issue. Once you look closely, the myth of a gender pay gap falls apart. The report doesn’t try to compare like for like.

We don’t want a cookie cutter society inflicted on us by ‘leftist’ government bureaucracies. Differences should be celebrated. Where individuals choose to work longer hours, or choose to raise a family, these are differences that should never be ironed out by publicly shaming companies into following the Environment, Social Governance goals of the United Nations.

We need to continue to support men and women in making those different choices, especially when it comes to building a family.

One Nation rejects the divisiveness of gender politics. We support stronger families and the freedom for men and women to make their own choices about work.

Transcript

It’s ironic the Labor government are seeking to rush laws on doxxing through this parliament when they’ve just committed one of Australia’s largest doxxings. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency published a list of 5,000 businesses across Australia and detailed the wages they pay their employees. Doxxing is the act of publicly providing identifiable information about an individual or organisation, usually with malicious intent. With the release of this report, these companies have been battered in national news headlines accusing them of huge gender pay gaps. The cries of the outrage brigade have been heard across the country. They claim that these evil companies have huge gender pay gaps and that the evil patriarchy is in full control, making sure no woman in Australia will ever get paid fairly. 

Make no mistake, the private information about these companies has been published for the purpose of whacking them around in national headlines; it’s easy to see. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency report is just a roundabout way of doxxing Australian companies, and taxpayers fund the agency $11 million a year to do it. I mentioned details at the beginning of my speech, yet the one thing that’s actually missing from the report is detail. The figures don’t make a fair comparison. 

Don’t let the headlines fool you; this report is not a measure of whether a man and a woman doing the same job at the same company are paid differently. That’s been illegal for decades. The report simply takes the median of total wages and compares them. No accounting is made for whether the men and women work in different jobs or whether they are in part-time jobs. There are no adjustments for overtime or seniority—the list of exclusions goes on and on. 

If a female air steward gets paid less than the male pilot up front, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency will say that that’s a gender pay gap at that airline. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency report is one of the most oversimplified, flawed, misleading uses of statistics we’ve seen from government, and that’s saying something! If we were to truly measure the impact of sexism on wages, we would look at men and women doing the same job at the same time for the same rate. A Harvard study entitled Why do women earn less than men? Evidence from bus and train operators did exactly that. Among men and women paid the exact same rates, they found the small wage difference was entirely due to the fact that men worked 83 per cent more overtime and were twice as likely to accept a shift on short notice. Fathers were more likely than childless men to want the extra cash from overtime. Fathers working harder to provide a better life for their children and their wives—that must be the ‘toxic masculinity’ the control side of politics, the so-called Left, complains about. In short, it comes down to choice. Men and women should always have the freedom to choose how they want to work or support their family. Given the option, they will choose differently. 

Norway is considered one of the most gender equal countries in the world, yet it has some of the most extreme policies with the intention of balancing out gender differences. Despite all of the incentives, Norway still has a 17 per cent wage gap, as the Workplace Gender Equality Agency would measure it, because women still choose jobs that allow them to take care of families. 

Of course, this agency report is the brainchild of the Labor government, bent on dividing women and men for political purposes. If we’re too busy fighting each other about a gender pay gap that doesn’t actually exist, then we’re not going to pay attention to the real issues the government is sneaking through this parliament every day. The idea that women are only useful if they abandon their children and return to the workforce to be a cog in the economy is one of the greatest scams of New Age feminism. Instead of pretending everyone fits into one cookie-cutter shape, we should be acknowledging and celebrating differences. We should be supporting men and women to make the choices they want to make. We should be reforming the tax system to recognise the work that the stay-at-home parent, whether man or woman, does to build a family for the benefit of this country and for themselves. Imagine if we used some of the $14 billion a year currently subsidising day care to instead support families at home. 

One Nation will always fight for stronger supported families and for men and women to choose the work they want. Unlike the $11-million-a-year Workplace Gender Equality Agency, we’ll always reject the divisiveness of gender politics, and we will always choose to celebrate our wonderful complementary differences. 

/2 Comments/by