Rethinking the Australian Model of Promoting Gender Equality

Regulating for gender equality in the Australian Public Service: Extending Dickens’ tripod of regulation

“…The Australian regulatory ecology changed in the 1980s, away from the traditional masculine model of industrial relations (Berns, 2002;Smith, 2011). Sex discrimination legislation and affirmative action/equal opportunity legislation (Allen, 2016) were introduced, and unions successfully centrally bargained for carer's leave and parental leave (Chapman, 2018). This demonstrated regulatory congruence between different types of legislation, and between legislation and bargaining, as all systems operated together to secure forms of gender-equitable paid leave, progress gender equality in organisations, and reduces the gender pay gap.…”

“…It requires each agency head to establish a workplace diversity program but does not require reporting or contain sanctions for inaction. This lack of enforcement falls short of a more positive gender equality duty that complements and extends affirmative action legislation by requiring agencies to do more than meet benchmarks and actively promote gender equality (Allen, 2016). It misses the opportunity to complement sex discrimination legislation by taking a proactive and collective approach, rather than an individual, reactive approach (Conley and Page, 2015).…”

The Public Law of Gender: From the Local to the Global

“…Starting from the reasonable assumption that gender equality does not exist, Allen imagines a legislative regime that imposes a positive duty to promote gender equality and Collins, by focusing on the specific context of nationality laws, highlights the importance of ensuring that law does not reinforce traditional gender stereotype. 22 Gover, Kapur and Kristofferson bring a different perspective to bear on this issue of equality and discrimination. Gover discusses the difference in application of anti-discrimination laws to race and gender whilst Kapur and Kristofferson consider how traditional notions of equality fail to capture adequately the oppression endured by gender-variant persons.…”