Gender Inequality Laid Bare: Transparency as a Tool to Drive Progress, Ethical Leadership and Good Governance in Victoria
The state, in particular through its ability to enact legislation, has the capacity to either perpetuate or confront forms of systemic and structural disadvantage and inequality. Increasingly, transparency is being seen as key to designing effective equality law, and the ambitious new Gender Equality Act 2020 (Vic) (The Act) is a leading example. The Act seeks to break down outdated stereotypes and systemic inequalities—particularly those that relate to gender. Central to the design of the Act is its commitment to transparency. The Act mandates a level of organisational transparency about the advancement of gender equality that has not previously been required in the public sector in Victoria, or in the rest of Australia. This transparency underpins the ambitious objectives of the Act and is integral to the obligations it puts in place to drive progress towards gender equality. A focus on transparency serves four main purposes in accelerating the pace of change towards a more gender-equal society and providing leadership in this arena. Firstly, it functions as a practical tool to encourage knowledge-sharing and innovation along the path to gender equality. Secondly, transparent reporting of defined entities’ progress towards gender equality acts as a form of pressure to make material progress, instead of participating in box-ticking exercises. Thirdly, the transparency within the Act is a marker of ethical leadership, by democratising knowledge in this space. Lastly, a commitment to transparency is a sign of good governance; it both allows the public to access and interrogate public sector progress towards gender equality and ensures that government plays a leadership role in pushing for positive social change. The Gender Equality Act 2020 (Vic) is thus an example of how laying bares our challenges related to organisational gender equality can help drive progress towards a more gender-equal future.
2. Arnadottir, R. 2016. “The necessity of the rule of law and transparency in modern society.” In Simonyi, A. and Cagan, D (eds) Nordic Ways. Washington, DC, USA,: Brookings Institution Press.
3. Blackham, A. and Allen, D. 2019. “Resolving Discrimination Claims outside the Courts: Alternative Dispute Resolution in Australia and the United Kingdom.” Australian Journal of Labour Law, 31 (3): 253–278.
4. Bohnet, I. 2016. What Works: Gender Equality by Design. Cambridge, MA, USA: Belknap Press.
5. Cavaghan, R. 2013. “Gender mainstreaming in the DGR as a knowledge process: epistemic barriers to eradicating gender bias.” Critical Policy Studies, 7 (4): 407–421.
6. Collins, P. H. 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York, USA: Routledge.
7. Crenshaw, K. 1989. “Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics.” The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140: 139–167.
8. Delgado, R., and Stefancic, J. 2001. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York, USA: New York University Press.
9. Eriksson-Zetterquist, U. and Renemark, D. 2016. “Can changes to gender equality be sustained?” Gender, Work and Organization, 23(4): 363–378.
10. Fenster, M. 2010. “Seeing the state: transparency as metaphor.” Administrative Law Review, 62 (3): 617–672.
11. Fraser, N. 1990. “Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy.” Social Text, 25/26: 56–80.
12. Habermas, J. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
13. Hale, T. and Slaughter, A-M. 2006. ‘Transparency: possibilities and limitations.” The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 30 (1): 153–163.
14. Hartmann, F. and Slapničar, S. 2012. “Pay fairness and intrinsic motivation: the role of pay transparency.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23 (20): 4283–4300.
15. Heisler, W. 2021. “Increasing pay transparency: a guide for change.” Business Horizons, 64: 73–81.
16. Hepple, B. 2011. “Enforcing equality law: two steps forward and two steps backwards for reflexive regulation.” Industrial Law Journal, 40 (4): 315–335.
17. Jenkins, S. 2021. “NSW Government Slammed for Using Grants to Pork-Barrel and ‘Punish.’” The Mandarin, 31 March. https://www. themandarin.com.au/152835-nsw-government-slammed-for-using-grants-to-pork-barrel-and-punish/ Accessed 9/4/21.
18. MacKinnon, C. 1989. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
19. Moors, A. 2019. “The trouble with transparency: reconnecting ethics, integrity, epistemology and power.” Ethnography, 20 (2): 149–169.
20. Möschel, M. 2011. “Race in mainland European legal analysis: towards a European critical race theory.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(10): 1648–1664.
21. Ng, Y-F. 2020. “The ‘Sports Rorts’ Affair Shows the Need for a Proper Federal ICAC – With Teeth.” The Conversation, 4 February. https://theconversation.com/the-sports-rorts-affair-shows-the-need-for-a-proper-federal-icac-with-teeth-122800 Accessed 9/4/21.
22. Treleaven, C. and Fuller, S. 2021. “BB see: transparency legislation and public discussions of wage inequality.” Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 58: 7–24.
23. Vinall, M. 2020. “Pay secrecy feeds pay gaps. Transparency can change that.” Women’s Agenda, 11 June. https://womensagenda. com.au/latest/pay-secrecy-feeds-pay-gaps-transparency-can-change-that/.