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.