Whose meritocracy are we talking about when it comes to appointing board members? - Women's Agenda

Whose meritocracy are we talking about when it comes to appointing board members?

Often merit-based selection is propped up as an apparent argument against targets and quotas to improve the representation of women.

But whose meritocracy are we talking about here?

If it was my idea of meritocracy, we’d already have equal representation of women across business and politics.

Women have the same level of merit as men, the problem is when discrimination gets in the way.

It’s an issue that came up at Parliament House on Monday in a hearing into a bill I’ve introduced to the Senate with some of my crossbench colleagues to improve the gender balance of public service boards.

The government’s policy is for public service boards to be made up of at least 40 per cent women but many departments are failing to meet even this unequal target.

For example, in the Office of Women’s latest report, women made up only 21.1 per cent of board members under the Department of Employment, while both Infrastructure and Agriculture had about 34 per cent women.

Our bill would put the 40 per cent target in the law, requiring departments that fail to meet that target to make a public explanation as to why.

In the public hearing yesterday, Carolyn Hewson said:

Increasingly I am aware the system of meritocracy is a system that has largely been designed by men for men.

And I could happily sit back. I’ve had the most stunning career and a fabulous career and I could happily sit back and not worry but I am concerned when companies, directors, when heads of government, when government ministers say we will only appoint on merit.

Well, which merit system, designed by whom, for whom?

Exactly. When we look at how this so-called ‘merit-based’ selection plays out, it’s clear that it’s up to those on the selection panel to decide what’s meritorious.

All witnesses at the hearing, including the right-wing Institute of Public Affairs, which is opposed to the bill, agreed that unconscious bias can lead to discrimination in board appointments.

It’s well recognised that people on selection panels are more likely to appoint applicants who are like them and, surprise, surprise, most of the people doing the appointing are still men.

In the case of public service boards, the relevant Minister – more often than not, a man – writes to the Prime Minister – again, more often than not, a man – for agreement on a board appointment.

If the Prime Minister deems it appropriate, the decision will go to Cabinet, which is still made up of mostly men.

It’s no wonder the percentage of women on government boards has gone backwards over the past two years.

At the very least, women deserve an explanation for this inequality, which is exactly what our bill would ensure is provided by departments that fail to meet the target.

What we need now is the big parties to get on board and pass the bill through the Parliament as a step toward finally achieving gender equality on government boards

×

Stay Smart! Get Savvy!

Get Women’s Agenda in your inbox