This month the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) released new gender pay gap data. As this coincides with International Women’s Day, it is a timely opportunity to assess progress towards gender pay equity in Australia’s universities.
Our new Gender Pay Equity Rankings provide this information in an easily accessible dashboard, making the substantial variation in pay equity transparent. The intention is for this ranking to motivate the same level of attention and resources that universities dedicate to other rankings.
Access the Gender Pay Equity Rankings Dashboard
The rankings dashboard makes three calculations of gender pay accessible:
Median Gender Pay Gap: The difference between the median (middle) man and women earner in each institution. This measure is less affected by the salaries of high earners.
Average Gender Pay Gap: The difference between the average of men and average of women as a percent. This measure is more sensitive to the influence of highly paid individuals (men or women).
Difference in pay quartiles: The % of women in the lowest paid 25% versus the percentage of the women in the highest 25%
2026 Findings – are things better or worse?
Nationally, gender pay gap decreased from 18.3% in 2023–24 to 16.4% in 2024–25 (Australian Government, 2026). Universities compare positively, and mirrored this trend, 22 institutions improved pay equity, with the average gap decreasing from 7.4% to 7.2%. Credit for this progress goes to women who continue to advocate for gender equity in pay, and to women and men who support them.
This year, first places go to the University of Sydney, with UQ and UNSW filling out the top three. All have a median pay gap of less than 3.0%. However, the top 10 is a more diverse space, representing regional institutions and variety of institutional profiles.
See Below: Four Charts on the Gender Pay Gap in Australian Higher Education
Actions and Leadership make Impact
Organised and systematic actions can make a difference in gender pay equity. For example, Science in Australia Gender Equity (SAGE) reports that its members are able to decrease the pay gap more quickly than non-members (SAGE 2025). The WGEA survey records specific actions employers are taking to address the gender pay gap, for example reporting to data to management and reviewing key practices. While no one action stands out as most impactful, reporting, analysing and reviewing practices tend to show results, and universities that took more actions had better pay equity.
The data also point to the impact of women leadership: universities with a woman vice-chancellor had a significantly lower median pay gap (6.4% vs 7.5%). However, greater representation in leadership roles is necessary: women make up 60.2% of staff in universities, but only 51.4% in the highest paid roles.
| Action | Institutions (N) | GPG Diff. (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Reported results of pay gap analysis to the executive | 28 | -2.2 |
| Reviewed remuneration decision-making processes | 17 | -1.63 |
| Reported results of pay gap analysis to the governing body | 25 | -1.45 |
| Reported results of pay gap analysis to all employees | 16 | -1.3 |
| Identified cause/s of the gaps | 26 | -1.04 |
Table: Actions associated with the largest change in Gender Pay Gap from WGEA Data. GPG Diff is the difference in median gender pay gap between universities that reported the action and those that did not.
Data Gaps
Of course, data don’t capture everything. While WGEA employer data increase transparency, gaps in the data continue to limit our understanding of pay equity. First, the WGEA notes the limitations of a binary definition of gender, and records data for non-binary staff from employers who voluntarily submit it. Gender also intersects with race (including Indigenous Staff), (dis)ability, and other important social and demographics, for which data are not yet available. It further does not enable an understanding of the stories and experiences of women navigating gender-based issues in the workplace. For example, while pay gaps may be narrowing, their wellbeing or job satisfaction may be declining. The quantitative data is important but qualitative studies are equally important in addressing the issue. While the rankings will hopefully prompt action, the data as they stand only paint a partial picture of equity in higher education.
The Gender Pay Gap in Four Charts
Chart 1: Representation alone is not enough
The gender pay gap is higher institution with higher proportions of women staff.
Figure 2: Institutional size matters
Larger institutions had lower pay gaps overall
Figure 3: Actions are Important
The gender pay gap is highest at institutions that undertake fewer actions to address the pay gap.
Figure 4: Progress where it’s needed most
The pay gap decreased among those that higher pay gaps in the 2023-24 reporting period.
Professors Robin Shields and Marnee Shay lead the UQ School of Education
References
Australian Government. (2025). Gender pay gap data. Gender Equality Agency. Retrieved from https://www.wgea.gov.au/Data-Explorer/National
SAGE. (2025). Pay gap update: SAGE institutions acting faster to reduce pay gap than their peers. Retrieved from https://sciencegenderequity.org.au/news/pay-gap-update-sage-institutions-acting-faster-to-reduce-pay-gap-than-their-peers.