Vol 37, No 2 (2021): Special Issue

Despite the rhetoric of equality that infuses anti-discrimination legislation, a close analysis reveals that it is in-equality that is invariably privileged. With reference to the Australian example, this introductory article will show how the paradox is played out at multiple sites in terms of both form and substance, such as through the individualism and confidentiality of the complaint-based mechanism. A striking exclusion from the legislation is the attribute of class, the most significant manifestation of social inequality, which remains ineffable even when it significantly shapes other attributes. The prevailing political backdrop of neoliberalism plays a significant role in promoting inequality through competition policy and profit maximisation. Powerful corporations not only endeavour to resist transparency, but they also tend to oppose proactive measures in favour of substantive equality. The contradictions of anti-discrimination legislation thereby sustain in-equality while simultaneously espousing the rhetoric of equality.

I argue that a general initial case for pay transparency can be made given the role played by transparency of information about prices in bringing markets closer to the ideal of competition or equilibrium price. This initial case might then be limited or enhanced depending on more specific considerations about the status of information about pay in particular. Privacy considerations seem to count against pay transparency, but I argue here that the context of pay information lacks some features present in other contexts in which appeals to privacy have force. Building on work by Estlund, Moriarty, Caulfield, and others, I argue that pay transparency may be favoured by considerations relating to personal autonomy in labour markets. Finally, I argue that pay transparency may contribute towards the realization of conditions of publicity, particularly relating to the value of citizens’ assurance about each other’s tax compliance.

The use of statistical data to prove racial discrimination by police in individual cases is relatively novel in Australia.  Based on a survey of international strategies, this article argues that statistical and social science data can play three critical evidential roles in litigation. Firstly, it can form part of the social context evidence used to influence the inferences that can be drawn from other evidence led in a case.  Secondly it can influence the cogency of the evidence required for claimants to meet the standard of proof, and thirdly, it can be used to shift the burden of proof.  Using these evidential methods, evidence of institutional racism can be used to assist in making findings of discrimination in individual cases. This article speculates on the role that statistics could have played in the Haile-Michael race discrimination claim that settled in 2013, and in the 2019 inquest into the death of Tanya Day.

What if data used to inform knowledge is incomplete or false, leading to misunderstandings about the social world? In Australia, what is known about ethnic diversity is based on an outdated definition and inadequate measure of multiculturalism. This article explores how gaps in data can lead to and further entrench disempowerment. Using a sociodemographic approach, this paper examines the ways in which data can create and maintain poor representation; via collection, analysis and infrastructure. This paper demonstrates that what is counted matters for equality, and lays out what is necessary to help promote ethnic diversity through data collection.

This paper considers the availability and use of data in parental leave policy making and monitoring in Australia. The terminology of parental leave is discussed and its use in Australia is explained as referring to paid and unpaid leave for mothers, fathers and partners at the time of birth or adoption of a child and usually covering the first 12–24 months after the birth or adoption. It includes entitlements in labour law legislation, the federal government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme and separate employer provisions. The paper outlines the range of data sources and how they were used to construct a case in favour of the introduction of the Paid Parental Leave scheme in 2010 and to monitor its implementation, as well provision of paid parental leave through enterprise bargaining and company policies. The paper also explains how data was used in a deliberately constructed way to defend the Paid Parental Leave scheme when it was under threat of significant change. In conclusion the paper draws attention to the way terminology is shifting, to how data illuminates the gendered use of parental leave in Australia and argues for the need for refreshed data on parental leave availability, access and use in Australia.

Understanding the processes contributing to equality of opportunity and outcomes in contemporary societies is at the core of the discipline of sociology. This paper illustrates the value of administrative data to underpin research aimed at identifying, monitoring, and addressing socio-economic disparities between population groups. To accomplish this, I draw on three case studies of recent empirical research leveraging administrative data to examine processes contributing to the (re)production of inequalities by sexual orientation. Collectively, the three case studies exemplify how data sources that fall within the broad category of ‘administrative data’ can help social researchers generate new, policy-relevant knowledge on socio-economic inequalities, as well as robust information to contextualize public and legislative debate. The paper concludes with a discussion of the promises and challenges of using administrative data to understand inequalities by sexual orientation, as well as inequalities between other minority and majority groups.

Although we live in an era in which government and private organisations collect large amounts of data, this has not filtered through to anti-discrimination and equality law in Australia. Government and its agencies have little incentive to collect information, nor does business. Neither group bears any obligation to tackle discrimination if they detect it. Yet the self-regulating enforcement model used in equality law is premised on the idea that information will be available to aid voluntary compliance. This article examines the nature of the data organisations that are currently required to collect and identify significant information gaps. It argues that it is not enough to simply fill those gaps with information; increased data collection needs to be accompanied by the obligation to address inequality if that is what the data reveals.

Transparency is a radical expectation in the context of equality law. In a system highly dependent on individual enforcement, the lack of transparency in the treatment of individual claims dramatically limits the potential of equality law to achieve systemic change. Overcoming discrimination that is systemic, embedded, and pervasive requires moving beyond confidential mechanisms for addressing discrimination. Given that the implementation of workplace equality law occurs in practice at the organisational level, there is a growing need to focus on what employers are actually doing to achieve equality, and how their practices are accountable to those affected and the broader community.