Sky News Australian Agenda Elizabeth Broderick 26 August 2012

Interview with Elizabeth Broderick Australian Agenda program, 26 August 2012

Peter van Onselen: Welcome back, you're watching Australian Agenda. That was the Defence Minister Stephen Smith speaking during the week and reacting to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick's report into the defence force. Thanks very much for your company. Elizabeth Broderick: Thank you Peter. Peter van Onselen: Let me just ask you I guess about one particular aspect of this, the idea of quotas. How many women would you like to see in the defence force? Elizabeth Broderick: We didn't actually say "quotas", we said "targets" and there is quite a distinction, I can talk to you about that later. But what is the exact number? I can't say what the exact number of women in the defence force is. It's 13.8 currently. It's definitely more than that. Is it 30%? Is it 20%? Is it 50%? I can't really say. What I can say is, though, we'll know we've got about the right number when women choose not to go into the defence force, not because they feel they'll be excluded through the culture and other
Australian Agenda 26 August 2012 Elizabeth Broderick

things but because that's not an employer that interests them. So I don't think there is a single number but it's very much about having that inclusive culture which may - allows women to be equal partners with men. Paul Kelly: How does the target work then? Elizabeth Broderick: So we put three what we call temporary special measures or targets. So it's for defence themselves, the ADF to define what the target is. The first one would be at recruitment and, in fact, you may be aware that the Chief of Army has come out and said that he wants 15% of new recruits to be female. So there's one target there. There will be a target in relation to the number of flexible work arrangements because we found that the ADF, only 1.7% of the workforce works in any form of flexible work arrangement and that's just far too low. And the third target we put, and it's probably the most controversial, is to expand the range of people who are going into staff college or those promotional gateways, so that's not a target directed necessarily at women. It's saying that people should be able to come from noncombat-related cause as well as the combat cause. Paul Kelly: Can I just ask you a general question. I mean, in terms of looking at the ADF how shocked were you about the culture and is it worse than the culture that prevails in other Australian institutions? Elizabeth Broderick: I want to start by saying I saw so much that was positive in the ADF, so much that was impressive, I have to say some of the most impressive women and men I met as I travelled round Australia. Having said that, there were instances, and I talked about them in the report, where I sought and met people who had deeply distressing stories.
Australian Agenda 26 August 2012 Elizabeth Broderick

Is it worse than I might see in other organisations, civilian organisations? I'm not sure whether the prevalence is worse but what I would say is the severity of some of those stories is worse than I would expect to see elsewhere. Paul Kelly: To what extent do you think this can actually be addressed? I mean, the ADF is a very different sort of institution. I mean, by definition in terms of its fundamental responsibilities. I mean, I think there are always going to be limits to the role of women in the ADF. I appreciate we've got 13% now, we're going to increase that. But it is a different institution. So to what extent do you think you can actually address the culture and change it? Elizabeth Broderick: It is a different institution, I was very clear to make that point in my report. And it's an institution which, for personnel who serve there, it carries many more inherent risks than any other institution you might come to. But really sexual assault, sexual harassment, victimisation, bullying, they should not be part of the inherent risks that are appropriate when I serve in the defence force. I do think there's a lot that can be done to really evolve a culture, firstly to making it a contemporary culture, a culture which attracts the best talent Australia has to offer. But secondly, which mitigates against some of the current deficiencies such as those issues, the issues around sexual harassment but not just those issues, the ability that as a woman I might be able to have a career that takes me to senior leadership level, that I can have an opportunity to serve in any role that I choose and a desire to serve in, there's some really significant structural impediments currently and they're the things that need to change. Paul Kelly: What about the work/family thing? I mean, you stress this a lot and again the ADF is a particular here because of the strains that it places on the family in terms of postings and so on. So what can you do to get that work/family balance right?
Australian Agenda 26 August 2012 Elizabeth Broderick

Elizabeth Broderick: You're absolutely right. It's the most difficult I think, one of the most difficult areas, to be able to build a strong military career and at the same time raise particularly a young family. It's a problem for both men and women. But one thing I would say is that women are making the decision not to have children. It's either ADF or family and we need it to be ADF and fa mily. What are the things we can do? One of the things we said is a good starting point would be to identify those roles where full-time employment is the only viable model. Now, having been to deployed environments I'd have to say deployed environments, flexible work arrangements will not work in those environments. They may not work on long exercises in army. Many of the seagoing roles will not work in flexible work arrangements. But I think if we did that, we identified those that were full-time and then said okay, let's have a conversation about the others, we would find many more than 1.8% of roles which were potentially available in some form of flexible work arrangement. Simon Benson: Could I take you now out of that realm - this is still on the same issue - and of course this week we've seen some attacks on Tony Abbott, the Opposition leader and claims by several front bench women in the Labor Party attacking him for being sexist. Have you ever experienced that sort of behaviour from Tony Abbott? Has he ever turned his back on you? Do you think he's a misogynist? Elizabeth Broderick: I don't buy into the politics of it. I'm an independent statutory authority. I've been treated respectfully by all parliamentarians across Australia. Simon Benson: On the issue though, you raise this about targets and deliberately not setting a target because you don't know necessarily what that target should be. The Labor Party set a
Australian Agenda 26 August 2012 Elizabeth Broderick

target a long time ago for women in parliament, the 40/40/20 rule. They've almost met that target. I think it's probably about 39% or 38%, around there. Do you think that that was a useful target to set or are there problems with setting targets like that in certain industries because, by definition, if you set a target for one industry which is different from another that in itself is discriminating I suppose. Elizabeth Broderick: Well, in a sense. The research is absolutely clear, sometimes we need targets to level the playing field. People say to me "Oh well, targets means that merit won't apply". No, that's absolutely incorrect. The fact is what the target does is ensures that both men and women are starting from the same starting point, then merit can take over. We saw it in the ASX corporate governance requirements recently. All publicly listed companies now have to set a target for the number of women at board level and senior executive level. We've seen astronomical increase in the number of women who are now coming on to ASX 200 boards for example. Now, this is not about taking the woman who's walking down the street and saying "Oh, by the way, would you like to be on the board of Telstra?". No, this is about meritorious candidates, exceptional women stepping up just as their male colleagues do and being able to have the opportunity to lead this country, whether it be in the corporate sphere, whatever sphere it is. Equally with men. And I think that's one of the things that we're trying to look at in the ADF as well. Peter van Onselen: But at what point do you move from talking about targets to quotas? Because the example that Simon raises is where Labor have put in place a quota and we've now seen them hit that quota because it was essentially a mandatory requirement. Whereas targets, there can be improvements and some of which in relation to the top 200 companies have been significant but that's off a very low base. They're still well off where they would be if it was a quota for example.

Australian Agenda

26 August 2012

Elizabeth Broderick

Elizabeth Broderick: It's a good point, Peter. And the way, when I look at the international experience, usually a quota comes in where a voluntary target in the sense - the setting of a target's not voluntary, a target will be set but I suppose achievement of a target's more voluntary. Where that doesn't work then often a country will go down the line of a mandatory quota. That's what happened in Norway. They, in the corporate sector said okay, well all companies will set targets. That wasn't successful in approaching where they wanted to be which was 40% of women, minimum 40% of women, minimum 40% of men on their company boards. So they did come in with a legislated quota. Now, that was also a one size fits all which is some of the problems around a quota because we know different sectors are coming from different bases. Mining industry, very small number of women, ADF, small number of women. You're looking at retail and some of those other things, you've got much higher numbers of women. So mandatory quotas are usually where a voluntary target hasn't worked. Paul Kelly: If we look at the ADF, compared to other military forces around the world in terms of the proportion of women we have, are we better off or lower in terms of the average, in terms of the norm? Elizabeth Broderick: We'd probably be sitting smack in the middle, Paul. So you'd look at Canada, the US, New Zealand, they would all have more women than us. You look at the UK would be less and some other countries, we looked at some of the analysis. But pretty much we're sitting smack in the middle. So one of the interesting things is that our report's been closely followed by our Coalition partners around the world and by other militaries. Because the fact is we're looking at this issue not necessarily about gender equality, although as a Human Rights Commissioner I'm very attracted to that. But this is actually about the sustainability of the defence force, it's about capability and operational effectiveness. The traditional talent pools which the ADF are drawing on,
Australian Agenda 26 August 2012 Elizabeth Broderick

they're drying up. The number of people in 17-to-24-year age group has flatlined and, in fact, over the last 20 years when more than 1 million women have come into the workforce for the first time, hardly any of them, in fact none of them have chosen to go into defence. Peter van Onselen: And on that, can I just take us back to the targets issue because I wonder, in my mind it seems that hitting targets and increasing the number of women in the defence force is a key component to changing the culture, where that culture needs to be changed. How important do you think those targets being met are to the sort of cultural change within the organisation that you would like to see? Elizabeth Broderick: They're very important, Peter, because one of the other things that our report demonstrates and the research showed quite clearly is the greater the number of women, the better the treatment of women generally. So if you can build a critical mass of women in any organisation, whether it be the ADF or other organisations, that will lead to an improvement in the treatment of women. Because where we particularly see and where I heard quite a number of distressing stories, it's women who are, you know, "I was the first one to go into this role", or "I was the only one in this part of the ADF". So what we need to do is build that critical mass and not just in the feminised areas, because we did see a lot of occupational segregation. Women are in admin, clerical, health, logistics, supply, you know, and then when you go into the more technical roles like engineering, marine technicians, those types of roles and combat, you just will see no women at all. Peter van Onselen: I wanted to bring you back to the question that Simon asked about Tony Abbott with the sexism remarks. I understand that you don't want to buy into... Elizabeth Broderick:
Australian Agenda 26 August 2012 Elizabeth Broderick

No. Peter van Onselen: ...the politics of it. But I just wonder in a more general sense how you feel about those kind of comments being used in the political theatre as to how that impacts on the more serious issues of actually dealing with, you know, sexism that you see every day in the workplace as part of your statutory role when you have politicians using it, in my view at least, as a political weapon. Elizabeth Broderick: Right, I think particularly if you're a trailblazer in the area, maybe like the first woman who goes into infantry, she will be a trailblazer, that's a really hard place to be in terms of attracting additional sexism. So you know, there's scrutiny and the level of, I suppose - yeah, scrutiny on you is very, very high, it's relentless. I mean, I was interested to read Hillary Clinton said in a speech a couple of weeks ago, she said "If I want to remove the news from the front page of a paper, I change my hairstyle" she said, and I think it does speak to the increased level of scrutiny. The fact is "Oh, you'd better not screw it up for the rest of us" in a sense, or, you know, it is a different place to be than being a man with maybe exactly the same policies or whatever it is, when we've had a history of men in those roles. And that, just bringing it back to the ADF, that will be one of the real issues about bringing women into armed combat. We cannot drivel them in one or two, and our report is very clear about that. We need to cluster women in some senses to at least start to achieve some form of critical mass. Paul Kelly: I'd like to ask you, and this is not your direct statutory responsibility but if we look at the operation of social media and the Prime Minister referred to that this week, that the tone and tenor of social media, particularly the nature of the attacks on the Prime Minister, the sexism involved, how concerned are you about that situation and what do you think ought to be done about it?
Australian Agenda 26 August 2012 Elizabeth Broderick

Elizabeth Broderick: I am concerned about sexism generally across Australia, absolutely, and particularly directed at those women who are in high profile roles. I mean I just have to go on to the web myself to read some of the things that are written about me, and I probably, as Australia's sex discrimination, that's not to be unexpected. But yes, I am concerned about that because it is about equal treatment of men and women, it's about looking at people based on not what they represent in terms of gender stereotypes I bring as a woman but how I'm doing, what I'm doing, and I am concerned about that, and then - but I suppose the thing is I continue to speak out about that because there are very well-defined gender stereotypes that exist in this country. I saw them in the ADF. There are many people there, I'm not saying by any means the majority but there would be a small minority but a very vocal minority who think that women have no place in the ADF. You know, and that's where - it's not a view that as a country, a country that wants to succeed globally, that wants to be, you know, a country where people are treated with dignity and equally that we can hold on to those views. Peter van Onselen: We're almost out of time but I just wanted to ask you one final question which relates to the other area of your responsibility which is the issues attached to ageing. Now, we are an aging society; how do you see going forward both the fact that we are an ageing population yet the levels of age discrimination that exist in the workforce, that sounds to me like it's going to be potentially a very big issue in decades to come. Elizabeth Broderick: I think it's an issue and it's one I'm getting more and more interested in, Peter, but having said that, I'm no longer the Age Discrimination Commissioner. Susan Ryan's come on but she's really doing a lot of good work on that agenda and you're absolutely right. There is a view that okay, well you're heading up towards 65. We don't have a retirement age in this country but there's a deeply unstated cultural norm as you're
Australian Agenda 26 August 2012 Elizabeth Broderick

hitting 65, you know, wouldn't you be better off, you know, taking your services back home? With the ageing of the population, with the fact that we've had a drop in fertility rates, we need to keep engaged in the workforce all those people with great skills, and we know that older Australians definitely represent a great group of talent in Australia. Peter van Onselen: All right, Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, we appreciate you joining us on Australian Agenda as always. Thanks for your company. Elizabeth Broderick: Thanks Peter.

Australian Agenda

26 August 2012

Elizabeth Broderick