STEM Diversity: All Talk, No Teeth
Author: Emma Jones
Pictured: Sally-Ann Williams, Chair of the Pathway to Diversity in STEM Review
Recently the Department of Industry, Science and Resources at last released its Statement to the Pathway to Diversity in STEM Review - the government’s formal response to the independent review led by Sally-Ann Williams, Mikaela Jade and Dr Parwinder Kaur.
I find there’s much to commend in the statement. It recognises that a diverse STEM workforce is fundamental to Australia’s future capability and innovation capacity. It outlines concrete measures for early education, skills development and tertiary participation. It also acknowledges the need to remove systemic barriers faced by women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, people with disability, and culturally and linguistically diverse Australians.
The document clearly builds on the good work of the review and reflects the government’s intent to act. But while the tone is inclusive and the initiatives numerous, one critical weakness runs through the entire response: a lack of accountability mechanisms for private-sector employers, particularly in the technology industry where inequity remains entrenched.
“Equity is not optional” – except that it is
The opening line of the government’s statement reads, “Equity is not optional - it is foundational.” In principle, that’s exactly the message we should be sending. In practice, though, it’s far from reality.
In Australia’s private sector, equity is absolutely optional. Every week, I work with leaders whose boards are indifferent to diversity and inclusion beyond legal compliance. Many still see DEI as a “nice-to-have” rather than a strategic imperative - and just as many are openly opposed to investing in systemic change, dismissing it as unnecessary or politically driven. There is no requirement, no market penalty, and no genuine accountability when a tech company chooses not to act.
Until the government is prepared to call this out and build real accountability into policy and funding frameworks, that opening line risks becoming a hollow slogan.
Education is well-covered – workplaces, not so much
The statement’s education measures are impressive and deserve praise. Investment in programs like the Young Indigenous Women’s STEM Academy, the Superstars of STEM, and the Building Women’s Careers Program are steps in the right direction. They strengthen the early pipeline and provide visibility for diverse role models.
But when it comes to STEM workplaces, the response is disappointingly light. The “Supporting Systemic Changes to STEM Workplaces” section lists familiar initiatives – such as the Women in STEM and Entrepreneurship grants and funding for the SAGE (Science in Australia Gender Equity) program.
SAGE is an evidence-based model that has proven highly effective across universities, research and vocational education. But the technology industry is missing from this picture. Private-sector tech employers are among the most powerful players in Australia’s economy, yet none of the government’s funded accountability frameworks apply to them.
A glaring gap in accountability
The SAGE program rightly holds higher education and research institutions to account for systemic change. It’s time to extend the same expectation to the private sector. In the tech industry, that means investing in a standards-based accountability model like the T-EDI Standards, which already exist, is endorsed by the Tech Council of Australia, and are purpose-built for technology workplaces.
The T-EDI Standards are an independent, evidence-based benchmark designed to help employers identify and remove systemic barriers that prevent women from entering, staying and thriving in tech. Developed and run by Project F, a social enterprise that receives virtually no government funding, the T-EDI Standards provide the same kind of structural accountability that SAGE brings to universities.
Right now, there’s nothing else like it for the tech sector. If the government truly intends to “support systemic change to STEM workplaces,” it must recognise and invest in mechanisms that deliver measurable accountability and transparency for technology employers - not just universities and government agencies.
Procurement and policy aren’t enough
The response outlines new procurement rules and supplier codes of conduct designed to encourage inclusive practice. These are useful but limited. They only apply to businesses that sell to government - a fraction of the tech ecosystem.
Similarly, legislative changes like the positive duty under the Sex Discrimination Act and new Workplace Gender Equality reporting obligations (for WGEA) are important, but they don’t touch the underlying systems that create inequity. They tell companies what not to do, but not how to build workplaces that work for everyone.
The risk of tokenism
Minister Ed Husic’s intent when commissioning this review was clear: to move beyond rhetoric and deliver genuine reform that transforms Australia’s STEM workforce. Yet without stronger accountability measures for private employers, the government’s response risks diluting that vision.
If we continue to rely solely on grants, voluntary initiatives and broad statements of good intent, this effort will become another exercise in tokenism - impressive on paper, but negligible in impact.
What real accountability could look like
Imagine if the government:
Funded a Technology Equity Framework based on the T-EDI Standards to benchmark, verify and publicly report on gender equity progress across the private tech sector.
Required all government technology suppliers and grant recipients to demonstrate compliance with these standards.
Linked future skills, digital transformation and innovation funding to tangible diversity and inclusion outcomes.
That’s how we would turn “equity is not optional” from an aspiration into a fact.
A call to action
The Pathway to Diversity in STEM Review was a landmark opportunity to redesign how Australia approaches gender and diversity in STEM. The government’s response contains good ideas and well-intentioned programs, but it needs to go further.
If we want a future where women and other underrepresented groups can thrive in technology and innovation careers, we must stop treating equity as an act of goodwill and start treating it as a core accountability.
Otherwise, the line “equity is not optional” will remain what it is today - a well-meaning statement from government that, in the real world, simply isn’t true.
Emma Jones is a leading voice on equity in Australia’s tech sector, and the Founder & CEO of Project F and creator of the T‑EDI Standards, the national benchmark for diversity and inclusion in technology. www.projectf.com.au / www.tedistandards.com