Personally, I think this is an excellent step in the right direction, and that despite some flaws in the process and methodology - it will no doubt draw attention to hidden inequality than I know still exists today.

The data showed that The Personnel Group has a predominantly female workplace; around half our managers are female; and on average females are paid slightly more than males. We pride ourselves on having a diverse workforce, with inclusive hiring practices, yet I am a long way from being satisfied with those numbers.

I am The Personnel Group's first male CEO, and for more than 90 per cent of our history we have been led by a series of incredible, strong women leaders. Women who worked in a male-dominant labour market and who built the inclusive environment we work in today. I am committed to continuing their legacy.

I believe fundamentally in merit-based employment - that every hire should be based solely on merit, rather than any gender or diversity. Equally, I have seen this used as an excuse for why some employers end up with gender or pay inequality. I feel like this is missing an understanding of where gender-based inequality can stem from. Preconceptions and stereotypes feed the inequality. Through my career I have seen many examples where males and females are informally judged using different standards on their behaviour. Males who are spoken of as strong or decisive, and women displaying the same behaviours called stubborn or bossy.

Beyond this, I feel that the WGEA reporting has a rather large gap, given it neatly defines the population as male or female, without appreciating the even greater disadvantage experienced by people whose gender is less easily defined.

In general though, I believe the reporting and public reporting of diversity data is a great positive, and should be explored for the broader diversity of an organisation.

Recently The Personnel Group completed a workforce census to better understand our broader diversity stats. It told us that almost 60 per cent of our team have lived experience of disability, neurodiversity, or mental health; more than 30 per cent of our team grew up in poverty or disadvantage; our largest age demographic (35 per cent) is people aged 50 or older; 10 per cent of our team are from the LGBTQIA+ community; 30 per cent of our workforce was born overseas and 5 per cent are First Nations Australians. Almost every person on our team is diverse in some way, but I still feel dissatisfied that entrance, growth, and promotion into managerial roles is not as strong as I would like it to be.

This data is useful because it helps me understand where we can improve, and what strategies we need to explore in being an even more inclusive employer. It reminds me that there is still a long way to go and even an employer who genuinely aspires to be inclusive, can have systemic or structural barriers that need to be challenged and overcome.

MORE COMMENT

Albury City Council appears to be in breach of section 23 of the Disability Discrimination Act regarding electric scooters.

Parking of scooters in Albury is slap-dash with no parking areas set aside - they are either standing upright or left lying on the footpaths and where they are nobody knows. I noted five the other day lying on a central Albury footpath. That they are creates a problem with access to premises noting that under the DDA Act a footpath is defined as 'premises' and therefore is covered by section 23.

A complaint can be lodged directly against a local government authority if it is responsible for the footpath, but this is a council that spends too much time on buggerising around with coffee roasting and not on core issues.

It is difficult to trust politicians and governments, especially those that mislead their electorates and promote false information. The trust becomes even more difficult when you know, from personal lived experience, that governments are not being entirely truthful.

Recently I have seen, on numerous occasions, the misleading Australian government television advertisement, paid for with our taxes, promoting the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It actually makes me quite angry every time I see the advertisement, because I know the narrative is false. While I acknowledge a plan was needed to protect rivers in the Basin, it is not accurate to say the nation's food supply could be threatened "if we don't act". Quite the opposite; the Basin Plan is threatening food security by not effectively balancing farming and environmental needs.

Of course the government doesn't tell us that the Basin Plan is significantly increasing flood risks for many communities and is exacerbating the damage to our rivers from European carp by providing ideal breeding conditions. It also continues to avoid admitting that storing massive volumes of water in Upper Murray dams is of no help whatsoever to solving issues with the Darling/Baaka River, where most of the environmental problems exist. Perhaps the Albanese government's next advertising campaign will focus on the massive cost of the Basin Plan, which looks set to soar well above its $13 billion budget, and highlight the plan's numerous failings which it continually refuses to address. Or perhaps not.