The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has reported a rise in its gender pay gap for 2024, against the backdrop of new national data, legislative reforms, and economic analysis on pay equity that are reshaping expectations for large employers, including insurers and intermediaries.
Data provided by ASIC to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) show the regulator’s average total remuneration gender pay gap was 6.5% as of Dec. 31, 2024, compared with the Australian average of 11.5%. ASIC’s figure increased from 5.7% in the previous reporting period. ASIC’s initial analysis points to several contributors. Gender distribution across job levels remains a key factor, with women more frequently employed in lower‑paid roles. Starting salary decisions and pay progression over time are under review, with indications these settings have influenced average earnings across groups of employees.
The agency has identified differences in pay outcomes for employees in comparable roles and performance bands and is conducting further analysis to understand those discrepancies and their impact on the overall gap. At senior levels, ASIC reports a lower gender pay gap than the organisation‑wide average and a downward trend in recent years, while noting that some differences remain and that further measures are being considered. Remuneration structures and certain employment arrangements are also being examined for their effect on average pay outcomes and for internal consistency. ASIC has noted that updates to WGEA’s reporting requirements, including the first‑time inclusion of the ASIC chair’s salary, influenced the 2024 result and limit direct comparability with previous years based on a different framework.
Women accounted for about 56% of ASIC’s workforce in 2024 and held 52% of leadership roles. Since 2023, the organisation has reported an executive leadership team at the senior executive service level with equal numbers of men and women. The Women in ASIC committee has a mandate to support higher female representation in leadership, including a target of 50% representation for women across senior executive service and executive tiers. ASIC has stated that it intends to reduce its gender pay gap and will publish gender equality targets under the WGEA framework. For insurance boards and executives, this type of target‑setting points to a trend in which large employers are expected not only to disclose pay gaps but also to set out plans and governance arrangements for addressing them.
WGEA’s 2024-25 annual report describes a series of reforms over the past five years that have altered how gender equality data is collected and used in Australian workplaces, including financial services and insurance. Legislative amendments now require large employers to:
Read next: ASIC sees enforcement growth and focus on market integrity
The report outlines how WGEA has adjusted its operations to administer these obligations and to support employers in using gender equality data in workforce planning and performance monitoring. WGEA CEO Mary Wooldridge said: “I’m energised by the engagement and improvement that I have seen from employers in that time. Their dedication and commitment to creating equal and fair workplaces is clear both in conversation with business leaders and in the progress we can see from the data they report to WGEA.”
WGEA’s latest total remuneration average gender pay gap for the private sector is 21.1%. On this measure, women on average earn 79 cents for every $1 earned by men, a difference that equates to $28,356 per year when all forms of remuneration and work patterns are included. The total remuneration metric covers base salary, overtime, bonuses, and other additional payments, as well as annualised full‑time equivalent salaries for casual and part‑time staff. It is designed to capture earnings differences across a wider range of pay components and working arrangements than base‑salary‑only measures. Under the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, employers with 100 or more employees must report gender equality data to WGEA each year. From these data, WGEA also calculates a median gender pay gap, currently 16.4%. Median figures are less affected by very high or very low outliers, such as chief executive pay, and are presented as an indication of typical earnings within an organisation.
Across all reporting employers, half record an average total remuneration gender pay gap above 11.2%, and half have a median gap above 8%. In women‑dominated industries, the midpoint of average gender pay gaps is 5.1%, compared with 12% in gender‑balanced industries and 15.6% in male‑dominated sectors. For insurance entities grouped within financial services classifications and often male‑dominated at senior levels, these benchmarks provide context for internal board and remuneration committee discussions. Separately, analysis based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Survey of Average Weekly Earnings shows a base salary gender pay gap of 11.5% for full‑time workers. Differences between this figure and WGEA’s total remuneration gap reflect alternative definitions of “pay” and workforce coverage.
Research released in January 2026 examined the broader economic impact of the gender pay gap. The fifth edition of KPMG Australia’s “She’s Price(d)less” report – prepared with Diversity Council Australia (DCA) and WGEA – uses Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) data to estimate that the gap is costing the Australian economy about $1.26 billion per week in equivalent earnings. According to the report, women earn an average of $42.26 an hour compared with $45.57 for men, an hourly pay gap of 7.3%, up from 6.5% in 2020. The authors suggest that sustained and “committed action” will be needed if the gender pay gap is to close before 2054.
The analysis attributes 37% of the overall gap to lower rates of pay in occupations and industries where women are more likely to be employed, pointing to workforce gender segregation. Gendered assumptions about workforce participation, including who takes parental leave and who provides unpaid care for family members, are estimated to account for 26%. The remaining 55% is attributed to other gender‑related influences, including discrimination and factors that are difficult to isolate in the data. HILDA data also indicate differences in employment arrangements. Women comprise 48% of employed people nationally, but 66.5% of part‑time workers and 39.8% of full‑time workers. Women are more likely than men to work on a casual basis or to limit weekly hours, with flow‑on effects for earnings, superannuation balances, and promotion opportunities. These developments point to closer, data‑based oversight of workforce structures and pay, with gender equality metrics increasingly considered alongside prudential requirements, conduct frameworks, ESG reporting, and talent strategy.
