Boardroom Confidential with Diane Smith Gander​​

BENNETT MASON Hello and welcome to Boardroom Confidential, a podcast from the Australian Institute of Company Directors. I'm Bennett Mason and thanks so much for joining us. In each episode, we have candid conversations with some of Australia's top directors, leaders and experts delving into their backgrounds and discussing many of the key issues boards are grappling with. I'm delighted to say our guest this time is Diane Smith-Gander. She's the chair of ZIP Co, HBF Health, Perenti, plus the chancellor of the University of Western Australia. Diane has also been a director with many organisations including AGL and Wesfarmers. Diane, thanks so much for joining us. Diane, thanks so much for joining us here on Boardroom Confidential. DIANE SMITH-GANDER Very happy to be here, Bennett. BENNETT MASON Let's get into it now. Diane, we often begin these podcasts by asking people about how their director career started. So, Diane, what led you to the boardroom and what made you want to be a company director? DIANE SMITH-GANDER Well, my parents had been very involved with charity and university governance, in quite substantive leadership roles. I'd seen them doing that and they'd encouraged me to get involved in sports governance. So I'd been on committees of basketball from a very early age. In the 1990s, I was a general manager at Westpac, and one of the development opportunities I was given was to join a government agency board. That was the Australian Sports Drug Agency, because I had something to say about sports. I also joined Basketball Australia board and a micro-cap listed company. But then I went off to McKinsey in the US in early 2000. But I always thought that governance roles would feature in my future because of that experience that I've already had. BENNETT MASON What lessons did you have then watching your parents as board members or directors growing up? DIANE SMITH-GANDER Well, it certainly took the scales off my eyes that it was an easy thing. I learnt that the political side of things, the social bit, was as important as the content. But I also saw that you could have real impact, and it gave my parents a great

Internal Use Only deal of joy to be involved. They both had a very solid servant mindset. They were both educators. And it also gave them an opportunity to transfer expertise that they'd had in other areas. My father, in particular was a very keen sportsman. He'd been a professional sprinter, and he'd umpired in the WA Football League for 40 years, start to finish. And so, it was something that allowed him to continue his connection to sport, all the way through his life. BENNETT MASON You mentioned a moment ago that you were at McKinsey, and you also had a senior executive position with Westpac. How did you decide to, I guess, make that total jump from executive career to board roles? And how did you find the transition? DIANE SMITH-GANDER Well I was back in Australia during the GFC and I was looking for the next step in my career. I had a very wise mentor, and she suggested that rather than just looking for an executive role, I should undertake a dual track search and have a look for board opportunities as well as executive opportunities. I had a real imperative, on the personal front, to stay in Australia and the executive roles that I was being offered were all offshore. Given the sort of experiences particularly at McKinsey that I'd had in the eight years previous. So the Wesfarmers opportunity was the first domestic offer that really excited me. And the size and scale of that organisation and the board role therefore, really meant that the board path was the one I was going to follow. In terms of the transition. I found it relatively easy. I felt I'd made a conscious decision and I'd prepared well. I was in the Australian market spending most of my time in Perth, and I hadn't been working as an executive in Australia for a long time. I'd been consulting. There's some parallels with the techniques a director uses and a consultant uses. And so I didn't have that issue of “Oh five minutes ago you're an executive and now you're a director.” But I will say that I'm sure that it felt a lot easier to me than to some of the executives that saw my early attempts at what is a respectful but challenging question look like. That bit, When you look back on it, you go, “Wow, I can't believe I did, said, asked Some of those things.” you learn a lot more nuance as you mature as a director. BENNETT MASON You had board experience, board exposure before Wesfarmers. But Wesfarmers is an enormous complex business, it’s one of the biggest companies in the country. How did you approach those first few board meetings at Wesfarmers? DIANE SMITH-GANDER

Internal Use Only Well, the way things were back in those days was before the board meeting, You would get a sealed green plastic envelope. It would be courier to your front door, and it had a security tab on it. So, you'd open the zipper and feel the weight of the board packet, break the tab as you opened it, and then you'd sort of get into it. And I was a real I'd say overpreparer. Of course, you're obliged to read every word that is sent to you, but you're not obliged to re-analyse everything Management's analysed. I spent a lot of time doing that just to make myself feel confident, so that when I turned up in the boardroom, I really felt across things. Wesfarmers, of course, really understands how to enable directors to be effective. And so, the briefings that were given to me as part of my induction, and then the process of learning about the businesses, being given targeted material from the past. And so, I felt supported and I felt confident. And you're sitting in a boardroom with very experienced directors. Directors that actually wrote the book, Colin Carter, Tony Howarth and I had worked together before Westpac, so there was someone that already knew me and someone that I could talk to. And Bob Every was an extremely experienced chairman. So, you're in that setting. You have a lot of support to perform well. And I was encouraged to speak to directors one on one about the things that were going to help me be a good director. So, it was really me being a preparer and Wesfarmers being very, structured in the way that it set a new director up for success. BENNETT MASON What do you know now about being a director that you wish you knew at the start of your career? DIANE SMITH-GANDER I think that really knowing that you're there to help management. you need to use your imagination, to walk a mile in the shoes of management. You do really have to try to put yourself to see things not only from your perspective, but from their perspective. Obviously it's a lot easier to do that if you've had similar experiences to them, and you can bring direct knowledge Of the issues that a senior executive will deal with. And so, in a way I guess I'm saying don't go to a portfolio career too early. The more senior the experience is, the more mirroring of the executive experience that you have had, the stronger you will be. And so, maybe I should have pushed harder on finding that next executive role. Or maybe, not taking the portfolio route that I did, right away. The other thing, I think, that a lot of directors feel is that because board agendas and timings are set well in advance, often two years for large companies, that this is a way that I can really have a more flexible work life balance type of arrangement and I can manage other priorities that I've got. And that's not the case, leaving enough room in a portfolio and recognising that Murphy's Law will

Internal Use Only apply. And then if one company has a transaction, something important will turn up for every other company in your portfolio. And those are just the realities of being a non-executive director with a portfolio. BENNETT MASON Being a director, like you said, is a busy life. You're managing a complex portfolio. What sort of factors do you consider when assessing whether to join a particular board? Are there certain things you look out for? How do you find the time? DIANE SMITH-GANDER So I think when you think about what I've just said around how Wesfarmers, was such a supportive board for me, those factors of who you’re sitting around the table with and who is the chair is absolutely the first thing that you need to think about. What's the CEO style? Are they a managing director or are they on the board as well? That's not always the case. Obviously in listed land, it is. But is that group going to enhance your reputation or potentially damage it? Because as a director that's what you've got, your reputation. And importantly can you bring some real diversity to that group? Is there something that you're going to bring that nobody else does? Because sometimes, even with the best will in the world and the skills matrix and head-hunters and so forth, you can find that, it's like, “Oh, gee, I'd be good to have that person on the board.” Rather than thinking about what that person will bring. So there was one period, where I was receiving lots of calls. Would I like to join 2 or 3 boards. And there was one director on those boards and I thought, “oh, I'm so like, that person.” It was another female director, had consulting experience, had quite a lot of experience in the US. I mean, I thought, “Well, what additional am I going to bring? I know her quite well. I think we generally see things from the same angle.” So they obviously like that style of director, but I'm not going to be part of letting them have two on that board. Importantly, you really want to feel that what the company is doing is worth doing. You know that there is some sort of purpose and vision alignment, and you really do need to ask those questions. Or is there a real realistic desire to move in a direction that you will be comfortable with, and can you be part of that? I like to know that there is at least the basis for a respectful relationship between board and management, and that it's not an argument that's just going on in the boardroom and to be part of developing it quite quickly. I have in the past asked if I could sit and observe a board meeting before I joined the board, and that was allowed and I didn't join the board. And I asked it because I had a suspicion. And I do think it's something that they should be more of as part of diligence.

Internal Use Only BENNETT MASON You don't need to go into specifics, but what did you see in that board meeting that you didn't like? DIANE SMITH-GANDER A lot of what I saw was that, over the coming period, it was going to be very much business as usual. I felt that the opportunities were limited ahead of that organisation. And I am not a person that likes places that are ex-growth. Or don't have an agenda for change and improvement. So, it was an important organisation doing lots of good things, but I would have, I think, been not strategically aligned with what the aspiration should be for the future. And there was a level of comfort between management and the board. Couldn't see the group that was going to make the pill in that particular oyster. The other thing you really need to make sure, which you alluded to, is time commitment, that you do have the ability to lean in. Do your induction, that's a busy period. And that you are going to be able to manage the cadence along with the rest of your work. BENNETT MASON You mentioned earlier in our discussion about mentors that you've had and experienced directors that you worked alongside of when you were beginning your career. What's the best bit of advice you think you've received about leadership or about being on a board? DIANE SMITH-GANDER Yeah, I got this advice from Helen Lynch, who sort of wrote the book on authenticity, I think. And she said to me, quoting Oscar Wilde, “Be yourself. Everybody else has actually taken.” And I think that authenticity is important. You want to be yourself and not try to be something you're not. You're on the board for the diversity of thought and skills that you bring in, not for developing into some perfect archetype of a director. I also got amazing life lessons from my parents. And my mother had a particular suspicion of benchmarking, because she felt it's what her children did themselves that really counted. Not some comparison to what other parents allowed their children to do or expected their children to be. So I always think, “Well, I'm happy to have a look at it benchmarking. But what I really want to know is what we're doing and what our capability is to improve.” And so in terms of leadership, that's also what I've tried to do. Compete with myself, not necessarily compete with others. And that I think has helped me as I've got older in particular. I'm a competitive person by nature. I’ve got a lot of that from my father. You're not a professional sprinter if you're not competitive like dad. But there is a time and place for it.

Internal Use Only BENNETT MASON I think your mother’s approach is good advice from world leaders and good advice for parents as well. Let's shift a little bit to your career now. You're currently a chair across several different organisations and many different sectors. It’s everything from a mining services company to a major university. Do you adapt your, chair style or leadership across those organisations, or is it is it always the same? DIANE SMITH-GANDER Well, I think there are some basics of a chair style that never change. you come with a particular flavour that you feel comfortable with. I’d describe mine is a bit of a curatorial style. I'm a synthesiser by nature, and that was really bashed to me over the eight years that I spent at McKinsey. Summary is a lovely thing, but synthesis is the thing that really lands in a boardroom, because what you're doing is taking all the disparate pieces that you've seen, mixing it with the unique way you can look at a problem, and then saying “so what” of all of this. So what I try to do, and I aspire to it, and I don't always get there, is to bring everybody into the conversation. And then at the end, synthesise board’s view. And what that does mean is that on the occasions where I might start a topic by expressing my view, it will actually attract the attention of my fellow directors, because this isn't usual. They know it's different. So perhaps it's something I feel unusually strong about, or perhaps it's something I'm not sure about. So I'm not following the usual pathway. But every board will have its nuances in it and its rhythms. You think about the university Senate at UWA. It's not a fully independent body. There's a number of elected senators, and the elected student representatives only serve for a year, the term of their election. So that brings a very different flavour into how you lead that group. Because you do have to put a few more signposts in and sometimes shape the type of input you're looking from people. So you can't just say, “What do you think about that?” You might have to give them a bit more of a guidepost. I think about something like Perenti, Perenti’s has got a workforce of about 11,000 people spread right across the globe. And I'm very sure that what our workforce at African Underground Mining Services expects to see from the chairman when she turns up is quite different to what a group of academics at the University of Western Australia expect to see. So there's a real natural difference there that you need to accommodate. Perenti has a principle about walking in their shoes. And so, my style is about trying to do that, understand what's important to the people in the company, and ensure that the governing body is paying attention to that. And has the right skills to turn that attention into something positive. So in Africa, I'm going to be focusing intensely on safety, because that's what's rightly important to the workforce. And on their

Internal Use Only training, because they all want development. But at UWA, academic freedom, research, freedom, freedom of speech and good transparency into how the university is managing those issues is an area that I need to show my leadership comes from a basis of real understanding. As a director, we have to be grounded in the fact that we need to understand the business well enough to be able to understand the hazards and risks to meet our obligations on keeping people safe and so forth, and in keeping the business sustainable, remembering that we owe our duty to the company. And so I think if you grounded in understanding of what this company is doing, how it has success, how it can have more success, and then what does the board need to do to support that? Then that needs to translate through into the chair's leadership style. BENNETT MASON Just a question on Perenti. You talked a moment ago about the focus on safety, especially with so many workers, so much staff in emerging markets around the world. How do you provide oversight of safety in an underground mine site in Africa when you're a chair based in WA? DIANE SMITH-GANDER Well, the first thing you have to do is see if the infrastructure that the company is putting in place, the policies, the practices, the processes, the training, is all of that robust enough to be able to deliver the vision of the company. Which is no adverse life changing events for our people. And how do you ensure that? Well, obviously, we have a responsibility to endorse and approve all of that policy and process framework. We receive reporting to see what is going on across the business, and we do it in a very granular fashion. And then we go out and look with our leadership to see how are they interacting with the safety standards. And I learned a very long time ago that it doesn't matter which jurisdiction you're operating in, you must operate with one approach to safety, one approach to all of those non-negotiables around your values. So, the Perenti values principles, critical risk controls are standard across the company. And so, I can go to a mine in Ghana or mine in Australia and see checkmates are there. They're done in a way that is very able to be managed by the workforce. Right across the company. And that's the way it's having that. Well, I'm only going to have this one system for safety, and it will be everywhere. I have seen in the past where there’s been quite a bit of push back, not in Perenti, but in other places, where I learned that if culturally, you can't bring people to that point that we will do this the same globally, your only option is to exit that geography. And in the past, I have been on board, led a board where we did that. We exited a business because we couldn't feel that we could keep people safe in that geography.

Internal Use Only BENNETT MASON I want to ask you about your visit to Ghana. But let’s go a little bit closer to home. You talked earlier about UWA, the University of Western Australia. You became the chancellor there this year. How meaningful was it for you personally becoming the chancellor of your alma mater? And what do you hope to accomplish there in that role? 00:23:07:20 - 00:23:36:13 DIANE SMITH-GANDER Well, I've been associated with that university for over five decades. My first experiences of the campus were as a primary school student, when I was learning French in a gifted children's program. And that's Perth, so there's always connections. My next-door neighbour had a job at the university. He'd been a farmer and he was looking after the animals that were still kept on the Crawley campus in the ag school. And I used to go over on a Saturday morning, quite quaking at being in the car with the next door neighbour. He was a lovely man but he was not someone that I knew that well. And the place is just so amazing because he would down one and we'd walk all the way up to where I needed to go in Arts. And so, he’d deposit me and pick me up three hours later. it's a sandstone university. It is the most beautiful campus on Earth. I know Sydney will have an argument with us, but I think it's the most beautiful campus in Australia. And I think it's got the most iconic building in Western Australia in Winthrop Hall. The place is just amazing. It was founded in 1911, and it was founded to the benefit of the people of Western Australia. And in its charter to be there to allow accessibility as well, for those that otherwise might not aspire to university. And in the Act, it says there will always be a university in Western Australia called the University of Western Australia. So, no pressure on me, right? So, what I'm hoping is that I can help the university navigate what is a really tricky, environment at the moment for tertiary education. The sector's social licence has been really eroded across multiple stakeholder groups. And that's a great concern, of course. And if we are going to meet our mission of promoting the welfare and prosperity of the people of Western Australia. And we recognise that the economy needs to diversify in WA to sustain future prosperity. And we've got to get more productive, like right across Australia. So a research intensive university like UWA has a really huge role to play in that piece as well. So that's the bit I'm hoping to unlock, is to get across these various stakeholder groups, really find how we can have a better conversation with them so that we regain our social licence, not just for UWA, but for the sector as a whole, but also that we make some really granular and impactful contributions to the diversification of the economy here.

Internal Use Only BENNETT MASON Let's talk a little bit about board dynamics now. What do you think makes boards truly effective in 2025? And are there specific practices that you try to foster as a chair or as a director yourself? DIANE SMITH-GANDER Well Bennett of course, it's all about the fantastic chair. but really, it's the board composition, and it's how that group of people are led by the chairman. You really want a board to be curious, open to challenge, respectful. I've talked about that before and respectful of their role versus the role of management. And that's the foundation for an effective board. How do you bring that to life? I do a bit of work in sports governance, and one of the principles that the Australian Sports Commission suggests is that each board should have a separate director code of conduct. Don't just sign up the directors to the company’s code of conduct. And of course, you have to sign up to that. But have a specific one that also sets out what it is you do in that boardroom. And it's not just, “Oh, we've got a board chartered, we can rely on that.” And once a year print out that blasted thing, dust it off, have a good look, sign it, re-sign it every 12 months. And I have to admit, I don't do this in all my boardrooms. And when I think about those sports governance principles and they're on my mind at the moment because I'm doing some workshops with the department over here. I think really that is a good thing to do, to have that code of conduct, that you really live to. Obviously, your board performance reviews and these must be done. It's not a tick a box exercise. Line it up with your skills matrix. Inform yourself as to how you really think you're going. The thing with those board performance reviews is if the directors don't make some commitments out of those to how they're going to make the board even more effective, and if there are things that go wrong and there's no consequence of that, then you won't be an effective board.. Because how on earth can you hold others to account if you're not holding yourself to account? So I think there's some real value in the annual board performance review. I think every few years you need to do it independently to make sure that you're not just marking your own card high. But I think there's a lot of automated tools now. And I've just gone through my first round of board performance reviews with a tool that I know quite well that has now put AI on the top. And I've got to say, the way the AI summarises, jeez, I thought I was a direct person and say what I think. But in a couple of cases, I had to pretty much say to the AI summary, “Could you be a little nicer?” Yeah, because they really just did nail exactly what the commentary from the directors meant. In one of my boards, there's a director who can go very deep very quickly. And the AI summariser has synthesised, I guess, really all of the feedback from the peer directors, which really pointed out it’s the time that you go deep, that's causing the problem. And even reading the reports, I hadn't

Internal Use Only clicked on to that quite so clearly. And the minute AI said it, “Yeah, that is actually the issue.” And now I've got some much more granular feedback for that person. And you really do need to make sure then that it does change. BENNETT MASON And that's a great example of using AI to perhaps make people more effective, more efficient. Are there other ways that you’re using AI on me as a board member? DIANE SMITH-GANDER So I try to use AI every day. At HBF, we had a futurist come and talk to our leadership conference. And we were delighted that management let the board come along to the leadership conference. And this was a tip. He said, “Every day, ask your favourite AI, what's the job that you've got in your calendar today that AI can help you with, and what's the best way to do it?” So my range of use of AI has broadened a lot from that. I know that there is a suggestion that it would be a fine thing to put your board papers through AI and get the AI to summarise your board paper and tell you what are the three logical questions. I will never allow that in any of my boards. I just think I don't want to know what the AI thinks, I actually want to know what those directors think. But I do like that technique because I think if I'm a board paper author and I can put my board paper through an AI and say, “What do you think this board paper is trying to say?” If it comes back with something that's not what I'm trying to say, that's going to be really helpful. And then if I ask it, “What are the logical questions that we think the directors might ask?” And you look at it then go, “Oh, actually, probably I should have put that in the paper.” I don't want all of those things to go in the paper. I want some room to be left. But I do want some of those basics. We go, “Oh, I thought I'd said that in there. Why would they think… “ And that's the dynamic. So I'm talking to my management teams through the CEOs about this might be a good way to use AI. But I use it as a very educative tool. And on the safety front, I've found that asking for a bow tie analysis on things, the AI I use is really good at bow ties. And that helps you get your thinking. But I was thinking, as I was using it yesterday. What level is it really at? So we had a look at a bow tie on social licence, in one setting and the company secretary and I were looking at it and we made a lot of amendments and changes, but it was a sort of a good basis to start off with. And there were probably one or two things there that I might not have got if I'd done it from first principles. And it really reminded me of being back at McKinsey and at the sort of level of conversation I would be having with the engagement manager. So, someone that had been consulting for some for four to six years and was expected to get the work product to about the 60% mark. So that's my experience. That what you're getting out of it for the sort of work I do is about

Internal Use Only 60 per cent. So we've got a long way to go before it's going to replace the board. BENNETT MASON AI is one of the big issues facing boards right now. It comes with a lot of risks and challenges comes a lot of opportunities. What are some of the other pressing issues that are facing boards in 2025? DIANE SMITH-GANDER Well, I think that the global geopolitical landscape is completely different to what we have seen in the past. And so, the risks that the company is facing just absolutely have to be different. And that is certainly coming with real dislocation and change in the way people think about supply chain. And costs are changing in unexpected and different places. So coming out of that geopolitical change that's really started from the Covid period and now come through the sort of, politicised and populist approach to government in a lot of developed countries. And the stage that the emerging powerhouses of China and India are at. All of that, I think, has made the world very different. And for Australia, there are just as many opportunities as there are risks. But I think a lot of thought needs to be put into that. Australian companies have tended to be somewhat insular. We sort of don't necessarily regard ourselves as being really good at taking our offerings globally. And so, we need to have more nuance around that because just because we don't think we want to go globally doesn't mean our domestic market is just going to be retained by us. I think the overregulation and compliance burden that exists in Australia is a big issue for boards, because it actually drives out the time you have to focus on strategic issues and things like AI. Now maybe AI will help us a bit. But like I said, it's only six out of ten at the minute. So, it's not turning up tomorrow to sort all of that out. And so that means that the amount of time that you need to spend in your board work is only increasing, and the reward is not increasing. And so, your liabilities are increasing. So, all of that is getting out of alignment, which I think is dampening enthusiasm for board roles in some arenas. And it may mean that directors are more focussed on opportunities in the private sector, non-public boards and so forth. So I think these are some of the challenges. BENNETT MASON Does that concern you? DIANE SMITH-GANDER Oh, yeah. It really does concern me because I think we need the best quality director talent that we can get. And we need those experiences that people have had, to my earlier comment about it's much easier to steward and guide a

Internal Use Only management team if you've had those senior experiences. And if people that have had them feel that this is not the sort of opportunity for me in the future, then I think we could potentially see the quality of directorship eroded. BENNETT MASON You’ve been quite vocal throughout your career on some key policy issues. We talk a lot at the moment about growth and prosperity in Australia, about improving productivity. There's obviously a role there government, for the public sector. Where do you think corporate Australia could contribute more? DIANE SMITH-GANDER So, tax reform that's been at the top of my list for ever. You know I think the Henry review, now so dated, was a real lost opportunity. And I think, our housing crisis has been really exacerbated by our state governments’ love of land tax. Sorry, stamp duty rather than land tax. And if we could move to very different tax regimes for housing, that would be a very positive thing. I'm not a fan of negative gearing either, and I think the time for that is gone. So, tax is a big piece. Allied to that is our federation. CEDA has done a lot of work in the past on “has a federation very good thing or bad thing?” and net net it's a good thing. But we have in too many areas, and in really important areas like health and education, got the balance between what the federal government does and what state governments do well out of whack. And also out of whack with the funding streams. So that's a real cause for concern for me because I think we are capping our national potential in health and in education in particular. And for a small population with the natural resources that we've got and the geographic position we hold, that's a very dangerous place to be in. We need to continue to give a really high standard of living to our people and a really high standard of education. If we're going to be able to continue to have our independence as a middle power, I'd see that's the buzzword at the minute. We're a middle power. And it's sort of nice to be middle in in many ways. Productivity is what's gonna come out of all of that and underpin it, of course. I really support the AICD’s call for a regulatory stocktake. When I was chairing the member body Safe Work Australia, one of the things I found really difficult was the way that regulatory impact statements were used by government and also the Office of Best Practice Regulation. Where it seemed to me that almost the way the process is, where it was impossible to get rid of regulation because of the way they put the business case for that. And no-one can see on a podcast, but I just put “business case” in quotes. So that, I think, is a very important piece. There's been a lot of calls from important business leaders who are respected and who have got real skin in the game around how do we increase private investment. And they pointed the finger very clearly, at the government pump priming that's happened of recent times. Now obviously during Covid we

Internal Use Only needed that. But when you see what that has done to construction costs, particularly in residential, that is really something that has had unintended consequences that have been particularly negative. And so, we need to find ways for government to get out of these places they shouldn't be and to allow the private sector back in to places that it needs to be. The problem is it's going to cause some dislocation and there will be some frictional rub, and some people will feel a lot worse off than they were before. There's some occupations, bricklayers come to mind, that are likely to be earning a lot less. And so how we have a government that is confident enough to step in to some of those changes feels tricky at the minute, but it is definitely where we need to go. BENNETT MASON Diane, you've always been willing to speak out on these big, important national issues. Why do you think it's important for, directors, chairs, business leaders to talk about these topics in the public domain? DIANE SMITH-GANDER Well, I mean, it's a very simple question. If it's not us who is going to do this? I talked before that our responsibility, the sustainability of our organisations maintaining their ability to have a social licence to operate and maintaining their ability, to have competitive advantage and bring an appropriate return to the shareholders or the members whatever your, beneficiary class is, and so I think we have to be able to speak about these issues that impact the sustainability of our organisations. It’s also our responsibility to our people and to our customers. I was particularly outspoken around the issue of marriage equality, because I've got family members who identify, and I know that there's somewhere between a ten, 40% of our population that identifies not straight LGBTQ plus. And so we know that in a large workforce, if I've got 10 or 14% of people, who are turning up every day feeling that they're not as valued and they're not able to be as open, then I know my workforce is not going to be as effective as it can be. And so I feel that we've always owed a duty, to identify those issues that really do affect our company and speak up on those. But you need to have that line of sight to it. So I think sometimes people think I'm nosy around more things than I actually am, but I certainly speak out about that topic. I speak out about gender equality, and I try to make the line between that, the economic arguments for the business case. And then of course, I'm interested in anything that is in the economic and policy sphere that is going to impact the companies I'm involved with. BENNETT MASON

Internal Use Only We don't have too much time left. But I did want to talk about gender equality, which you mentioned a moment ago. You've been a recognised advocate in that space, and you yourself have been a trailblazer too. What progress have you seen on gender equality and importantly, into the future? What still needs to change? DIANE SMITH-GANDER Well, there's certainly has been progress and at least women need to leave the workforce if they get married or have children. Like my mother had to back in the 1950s, not that long ago, not 100 years ago. Also, look, the battle for equal pay, for equal work has been well and truly won. But there isn't a huge gender pay gap still. And at the moment when we measure the gender pay gap, we measure it on ordinary earnings, not bonus. And over time so we're not only number. And if you use that all in. But the gender pay gap more than doubled to about 20% average across Australia. And what that points to is the core problem, which is that respect for women is too low. violence against women by men is a really troubling indicator. And the culture change that you need to move that dial takes a very long time. But if we can reduce the gender segregation in our workforce, we're caring. Roles are so largely paid and largely done by women, and men are in the sort of decision-making type, higher paid roles. Then I think we can make some real progress because we normalise women in decision making, and just more contact between men and women at work will build more respect. BENNETT MASON Diane, I'd love to keep talking about I know you have a packed schedule, so I think we'll leave things there. Thank thanks very much for joining us on the podcast. DIANE SMITH-GANDER Thanks, Bennett. It's been very much my pleasure.