By Michael Short
You could be forgiven for interpreting the appointment last week of the first female chief justice of our High Court as evidence the manifold injustices routinely suffered by the female half of the population are being swept away. And it is indeed true that Susan Kiefel's ascendancy to the nation's pre-eminent judicial post does represent progress. It's long overdue. Her appointment, after all, ends 113 years of men leading Australia's constitutional court. And it takes the number of women on the seven-member bench to three.
A couple of blokes tend to the glass ceiling...Credit: Sebastian Kahnert
So, yes, there has been some good change – not only in the judiciary, but across a number of industries and professions. There's now a significant minority of women, for example, in Federal Parliament, particularly on the opposition benches. But it's taken a bloody while, and is still disappointingly disparate given that, in a world-first, universal suffrage and "allowing" women to stand for Federal Parliament were introduced in Australia in 1902. (Yet it was some four decades before the first women joined the ranks of lawmakers in Canberra. And they say a week is a long time in politics.)
There was a touch of irony in the timing of Susan Kiefel's appointment. It came only days after the Victorian Women's Trust, led by one of Australia's leading gender policy experts, Mary Crooks, staged over two days the biggest gender equality conference in Australian history, Breakthrough. The very fact the packed event, at which there were 100 speakers, occurred indicates there's still a big problem.
The glass ceiling of gender inequity: women still on the bottom. Illustration: Matt Davidson
A long way to go
There is abundant evidence we have a long way to go before we can rightly claim to live in a fair, enlightened society and economy. Here's but a taste. Only a matter of days before Breakthrough, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, using data from more than 12,000 employers and 4 million employees, reported that although women comprise half of the nation's workforce, they still earn less than men at every level. A hell of a lot less – $27,000 on average and almost $100,000 less at the executive level. Not that there are that many female executives. Fewer than 17 per cent of chief executives are women and only a little more than a third of management roles are held by women.
In a land that prides itself on the notion of a fair go, that is pathetically unfair. It's also dumb to the point of negligent; international evidence shows that companies with gender-balanced boards make better profits. So, all you big, swinging middle-class white fellas in the boardrooms and the corner offices, your ongoing refusal to properly participate in power-sharing is not only selfish and cowardly, you're letting your shareholders down.
Pay gulf
The pay gap is biggest in the financial sector – about 36 per cent. And despite my industry probably being less bad in terms of gender inequality than some others, the gap in media is also shockingly high – almost 25 per cent. Australia is far from being the only place mired in long-running gender injustice. Even in Iceland, considered one of the most progressive societies, there's a gap of 14 per cent. Thousands of women in Iceland recently came up with a fabulous response: they left work 14 per cent early.
Targets work. Women in Victoria now hold almost half the seats on paid government boards, only 18 months after Premier Daniel Andrews declared he wanted equal representation in public boardrooms, As recently as the start of this year, the proportion was below 40 per cent. The government is poised to expand the use of targets.
It was with such facts and figures in mind that I spoke at and moderated a Breakthrough session on the situation in the media. Yes, there has been progress in newsrooms and press galleries, but it's insufficient. The inequality is measured not only by the pay gap. The upper echelons of media companies and their journalistic operations continue to be dominated by men.
The "boning" of Jess Rowe
The audience at our session was left in no doubt just how ridiculously unfair the situation remains. Broadcaster Jessica Rowe, who is loving her current role as co-host of a talk show because she has a platform for her views, talked of her times in male-dominated newsrooms, when she and other women had to protect each other from appalling discrimination and harassment. She spoke, too, of her infamous experience of being ``boned" (sacked) from Channel Nine by Eddie McGuire in a typical bout of gormless macho bastardry. He did call Jess's home to apologise – to her husband Peter – and claim he had never used the term ``boned". Really.
Kerry-Anne Walsh, a renowned person of long journalistic, political and corporate experience, recounted the breathtaking prejudice she experienced in the media. She was ``given the chance" by a man to be a leader in the Canberra press gallery. She was paid less than her male predecessor and when she moved on, her male successor was paid more than she had been.
Award-winning screen producer and Adjunct Professor at RMIT University, Sue Maslin, explained that studios are only now coming to understand the need to appeal to a female audience, and that this is best done by films made by women. Sue is optimistic, partly because her industry has realised hard and fast targets do create change – more of which in a moment.
Lola Forrester, a celebrated broadcaster, producer, presenter and model, added an extra layer of understanding by telling of just how hard it is for an Indigenous woman to get anywhere in the media.
Mandatory targets time
Listening to Lola, Sue, Kerry-Anne and Jess buttressed the conclusion I had reached when thinking about what to say at the event. I understand and have sympathy for the arguments against quotas. And maybe they should be kept as a last resort, a threat of sorts to the men who refuse to relinquish power. But, across the board, not just in media, there should be enforceable gender equality targets. There are some (only about 13 per cent of boards have a gender target) but they should be mandatory. And actually meeting them should be among the most important criteria on which the performance of managers and executives is judged.
So yes, there has been progress and yes, meritocracy should of course be the goal. But, despite all the talk over decades, the progress has clearly been so slow and inadequate that we remain far from meritocracy. Breaking through the barriers to that unimpeachable goal requires transparent action – by men who have the guts and decency to want to compete fairly, rather than perpetuating and exploiting injustice. Sounds like it might make a fine test case for the High Court.
Michael Short is The Age's chief editorial writer. @shortmsgs