On commitment to gender
We have a number of voluntary procurement policies – for example, around the purchasing of legal services – that encourage the consideration of gender in purchasing. You have to consider them, but they’re not mandated with targets or quotas.
What we’ve been trying to do in the legal domain is to introduce targets with procurement to make sure women get a certain percentage of briefs, for example. They’re not mandated targets that they have to sign up to, but a number of big corporates, the government and a large number of law firms have signed on. Without targets, you can’t measure the success of your commitment.Some of the big multinationals and their in-house counsel have a very influential role to play here, because they can require that those things be complied with or ticked off by the law firms delivering the services.
On sexual harassment
If you’re talking about the sly denigration, the vile humour, the put-downs, the harassment, some women are paralysed to do anything about it. Junior women in the workplace, who have no tools or ability to complain, and need the job, will accept it. So we must also have men in positions of power calling it out.
The fear is that, as soon as people become a complainant, it then becomes about them, and their own behaviour is scrutinised or they are blamed for what’s happened. So I understand people’s reluctance to bring complaints. But, at the very least, if you have it in the conduct rules, it does send a clear message that we will not tolerate this.
Of course men can restrain their own behaviour. If we assume that men are compelled to act on their instincts, then we demean them as well. We need to treat each other with courtesy – that underlies everything. We cannot allow men to act in a way that is uncivilised and discourteous to each other and to women. We must call this out.
On women in law
Sixty per cent of our law graduates are women, but they leave after around five to seven years of seniority. About a quarter of equity partners in big firms are women, and approximately ten per cent of QCs and FCs.
It’s not enough to have super women: you must have equality down through all levels, which is why it’s so important to address equal pay, and look at how we employ, promote, allocate work to and brief people.
The current pay gap between male and female barristers is 147 per cent in Australia. Women coming out of university are topping the class, they are the best and brightest, then something happens and suddenly they’re not valued in the same way. How can this be? You don’t leave university and then become less capable. There’s some blockage in the way we work.
We’re not consciously looking down for women to promote. Those unconscious biases are coming into play so, when we make an assessment about who’s worthy for the mega brief or the key client or front of house role, we think of the fellow who’s already clocked up the accomplishments that we rate as giving them more merit or making them more worthy.
We don’t value in the same way the woman who has stepped sideways into human relations for a time so she can manage her kids, or the person who’s been part-time, or the back of house discovery work and compilation work making the people at the front look fantastic.
We see this at the bar particularly. Women are not appearing in courts in the numbers in which they are coming through law schools.