Legal Employment Discrimination in Australia Based on Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation

GnarlyKnuckles on 05/06/2024 - 03:48

Many, probably even most Australians are under the impression that it is illegal to discriminate against any job applicant here in this country based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. However, that is absolutely false. Over the last 50 years numerous laws have been passed that enshrine exactly those types of discrimination in law (that is, they sanction them; render them legal). Here is a short list of just some of these laws. There are more:

Special measure under section 31 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), section 27 of the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT), section 57 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1996 (NT), section 105 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), section 47 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA), section 26 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) and section 12 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic). Under provisions of section 126 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), an exemption is given from sections 8, 25 and 51 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) to limit recruitment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people only.

However well-intentioned the genesis of these individual laws may have been at the time they were passed, what they now amount to is a large and growing collective of numerous laws that function together to facilitate blatant and widespread legalised discrimination against Caucasian heterosexual men in the employment realm; both young (‘kids’ just now trying to get their first job), and old.

I have to list the detailed poll options here, because OzBargain only allows '100 characters per poll option' (which is useless, but anyways):

a. I was surprised to learn that it is legal to discriminate against job applicants in Australia based solely on race, gender, or sexual orientation, and I don’t agree with that policy. All applicants should be appointed based on merit.

b. I was surprised to learn that it is legal to discriminate against job applicants in Australia based solely on race, gender, or sexual orientation, but I agree with that policy.

c. I was already aware that it is legal to discriminate against job applicants in Australia based solely on race, gender, or sexual orientation, but I don’t agree with that policy. All applicants should be appointed based on merit.

d. I was already aware that it is legal to discriminate against job applicants in Australia based solely on race, gender, or sexual orientation, and I agree with that policy.

Poll Options expired

  • 6
    a. I was surprised to learn of it, and I disagree with it (appointments should be based on merit).
  • 0
    b. I was surprised to learn of it, but I agree with these policies.
  • 39
    c. I was aware of it, but I disagree with it (appointments should be based on merit).
  • 17
    d. I was aware of it, and I agree with these policies.
Education & Work

Comments

  • morse on 05/06/2024 - 03:51
    +2

    Here we go again. Is there not a duplicate rule for forum posts?

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 05/06/2024 - 04:02
      -7

      If you are accusing me of being a 'broken record' coders …

      Right back at ya!

      I respectfully suggest that you contemplate the notion of substance with respect to the content that you post. Or at least try to. Whingy/whiny one liners are not helpful, or informative, or even entertaining for anyone here.

      Do you have anything actually worthwhile to contribute?

      • morse on 05/06/2024 - 04:19
        +8

        Not just you. But yes, I do have something worthwhile to contribute, this extensive but not exhaustive list of the same or very similar forum posts (including from this week):

        Taxpayer-funded paid traineeships —> permanent full-time employment, $71k per year salary, no quals or experience required
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/828470

        Can a Man Complain about Gender Imbalance and Inequality at Work?
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/828340

        Discrimination against white heterosexual males in academia (etc.) in Australia
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/590551

        Discriminatory Job Ad on SEEK
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/848830

        African Heritage as a Condition of Employment
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/652894

        What's with Competition Winners Being Almost Always Women?
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/812036

        Discrimination against male applicants - QLD Police
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/623949

        Gender Discrimination (Employment) - Female Gender Bias
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/291998

        The Pink Ceiling: Workplaces Rigged against Early and Mid-Career Men
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/801224

        Workplace equality (or inequality..) - what to do?
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/520394

        • GnarlyKnuckles on 05/06/2024 - 04:48
          -6

          Note how much public interest and public comment/discussion these posts tend to generate, codes.

          You seem to be suggesting that this is a bad thing. You don't like this perhaps, and would prefer it if such matters were not discussed here? If that is not it, then what exactly is your complaint/point?

          Situations keep arising here in Australia, where a certain demographic is actively and legally discriminated against by law; particularly (but not exclusively) with regard to employment. Each time this happens, some members of that demographic feel like mentioning/commenting on this here, perhaps with a view to raising/maintaining public awareness of this escalating disadvantage being imposed upon them and their sons.

          Why do you think it is not their right to do this?

          Why are you apparently attempting to have these posts/forums/discussions shut down, on the flimsy premise that you find them repetitive?

          Back in the day, peeps found women's lib 'annoyingly repetitive' after a while. It turns out that was exactly what was required to instigate rational change; rational vigilance, in the face of mindless and inherently contradictory folly.

          ,

          • morse on 05/06/2024 - 07:15
            +10

            @GnarlyKnuckles: Shut down, no. It’s just the same discussion has already been had this week, so you already know everyone’s contemporaneous views.

            Also despite your need to make ridiculously long poll options they are still misleading. They all say “ solely on race, gender, or sexual orientation”, affirmative action hiring is very rarely ‘solely’ about any of those. It’s also about the lived experience of being with those backgrounds and the associated attributes. Sometimes it’s actually a fundamental requirement of the role. For example, for example women’s trauma counsellor, Aboriginal health worker, mental health peer worker. Other types is an about the make up of the work workplace - you can’t bring you Aboriginal culture and history into the workforce mix of you’re not Aboriginal. Employers are choosing to have a mix of genders, cultural background etc as it meets whatever objective they are seeking eg diversity, opportunity , culture etc. Remember employers also discriminate between candidates who have empathy, insight, flexible thinking etc and those who don’t.

            • Hardlyworkin on 05/06/2024 - 08:01
              +3

              @morse: Good points. Another example of 'how do I create a poll to reinforce my beliefs?'

            • Cobber870 on 05/06/2024 - 10:01
              +1

              @morse: Personal experience of the process in the NT Government (short version):
              Under the recruitment process, if there are any applicants (ATSI) identified and confirmed as meeting the Special Measures requirement are assessed against the selection criteria first. If they are not deemed suitable (i.e. meet the selection criteria for the position), a form is submitted to say as such, and they are not hired in the role. All other applicants are then assessed against the criteria and ranked.

              Note some positions (e.g. Aboriginal Health Practitioner) can only be filled by ATSI identified staff.

        • ThithLord on 05/06/2024 - 08:31
          +1

          1% of jobs listed are gender/protected class, the rest are without those conditions met. Let them feel persecuted, lmao

  • garetz on 05/06/2024 - 04:04
    +10

    Reverse racism is still just racism.

  • ihfree on 05/06/2024 - 04:44

    Likely troll post. Op didn't even bother responding to their last post on the topic but did leave this comment:

    I forgot to mention in the text of the poll/post, I am not going to comment here at all for the first week. So please feel free to post any comment you want, without fear that I will 'jump in' and make any disparaging remarks about your comments.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 05/06/2024 - 04:57
      -5

      You clearly have no idea whatsoever about concepts such as bias, priming respondents in research, etc. That post, from long ago, attracted about 100 comments and fostered substantial public discussion here I recall.

      Why, exactly, would you think that such a contribution was a 'troll post'?

      Is that honestly the best criticism you could come up with?

      You really could not actually address the matter at hand in any way, so you just resorted to that?

    • SBOB on 05/06/2024 - 10:11

      Well it's accurate for this post also, as they now over in the naughty corner.

  • JIMB0 on 05/06/2024 - 05:19
    +3

    This is an outrage. It's us white heterosexual males who need these jobs so that our wives can stay at home raising the kids, doing housework and making sure dinner is on the table for when we get home.

  • DashCam AKA Rolts on 05/06/2024 - 05:29
    +2

    Discriminated against white male syndrome, AKA snowflake-itis.

  • screensaver on 05/06/2024 - 06:29
    +2

    theres also age discrimination

  • SBOB on 05/06/2024 - 07:04
    +7

    Caucasian heterosexual men in the employment realm

    As one of these, I salute you sir
    I award you +1 moral outrage powerup

  • Stuj on 05/06/2024 - 07:08

    The loudest voices in opposition alway seem to be those that arnt the cohort of people the laws are meant to, being in a minority is a lived experience so those not experiencing it seem to see no issue with the world, thus the outrage.

  • shaybisc on 05/06/2024 - 07:44
    +2

    Hundreds of years of negative discrimination against indigenous Australians no worries but a bit of positive discrimination is way over the top - outrageous.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 05/06/2024 - 07:52
      -5

      Here we go again, with a loose cannon promoting the attitude of:

      "Let's justify ongoing discrimination perpetrated today and into the future here in Australia, because of discrimination perpetrated in years gone by".

      Does that really seem like a productive way forward to you shay?

      • dtc on 05/06/2024 - 09:47
        +4

        How do you fix 100+ years of 'just hire the best person' resulting in very clear data showing this has meant 'hire the straight white male'? An hour of unconscious bias training? Or maybe getting people into the workplace and then everyone realising that just because you are female/not white/not straight, you can still do the job.

        time and time again its been shown that if people actually interact with the minorities they fear or dont understand, they end up realising 'just another person, same as me'. However, unless and until we get those minorities (or majorities, in the case of women) into the workforce, then that doesnt happen.

        So lets hear your solution.

        Start by reading about the blind audition process for orchestras and what happened when that started. Then come back and tell us your solution in the face of overwhelming evidence that the 'hire the best' has been shown to have totally failed over many many years.

    • AustriaBargain on 05/06/2024 - 09:17
      -3

      I know right. I think Indigenous people deserve to have good jobs handed to them on a silver platter after what we as a country have done to them for so long. And by we I mean you guys, as my parents were both migrants from neutral non empire making countries, I'm actually more European than Australian really.

  • mskeggs on 05/06/2024 - 07:48
    +13

    When you have been the beneficiary of a stacked deck so long, playing with a fair one seems like an injustice.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 05/06/2024 - 07:55
      -6

      Clearly a blatant attempt to 'play to the gallery' here Skegs, and for the record, I have 'been the beneficiary' of nothing of the sort. Quite the contrary, as it happens.

      Shame, shame.

      • Hardlyworkin on 05/06/2024 - 08:05
        +1

        You didn't win the citizenship lottery of being born in Australia? Such a massive advantage on most of the world's population.

        • GnarlyKnuckles on 05/06/2024 - 08:08
          -2

          No I was definitely not born in Australia. I am also amused by your comment. Are you suggesting that merely being born in Australia would constitute being on the receiving end of a 'stacked deck'? If that is so, then I suggest that you look into that term a bit further.

      • mskeggs on 05/06/2024 - 08:59
        +3

        Lot's of historically marginalised people have much worse outcomes when it comes to things like employment.
        Do you have a proposal to improve this?
        I don't particularly like reverse discrimination initiatives, but they are a step to a more just outcome.
        So I am very keen to hear your better alternative.

        • justworld on 05/06/2024 - 09:19
          +4

          I'm not against affirmative action, but I think there are other ways to achieve fairness as well:

          1. Blind applications. No name, no picture (both are hidden), just credentials.

          2. More systematic use of testing. If you are hiring a lawyer, have the person complete a short written or oral assignment. If you are hiring a software engineer, have him or her do a coding test.

          3. More equitable school pathways. Your ATAR should be based solely on your rank within your school (selective schools excepted). This would very quickly remove the incentive for parents to send their kids to an 'elite' private school, and within a few years all schools would equalise.

          • mskeggs on 05/06/2024 - 12:47
            +1

            @justworld: Agree this is better, the remaining issue is then about inherent biases - my internal bias causes me to feel attributes of, for example, cultural fit, are more important than attributes that, for example, favour diversity.
            And they are hard to overcome.

          • morse on 05/06/2024 - 21:35

            @justworld: Highly rate 2. I do this with my candidates and hardly anyone does in the field I hire to, and it absolutely weeds out the fakers and lets people demonstrate their ability. It’s not the only factor but very useful.

  • GnarlyKnuckles on 05/06/2024 - 08:13
    -6

    It seems then, that you are commenting on things that you have not actually 'lived', and therefore have very limited insight into. In other words, you are making a lot of assumptions about numerous things about which you know little.

  • pegaxs on 05/06/2024 - 08:57
    +8

    What, all that crying and not a single use of the word "woke"?

    Anyway, I say let them have their quotas. I welcome these companies employing people based on their genitals and not their skills. That cant possibly come back to bite them on the arse…

    But on the flip side of this coin, I can see a lot of women and minorities being passed over for these positions based on nothing but their race and genitals. Sometimes the right person for the job is that female from a minority group who gets thrown out without even having a chance all because some dude in the "dudes" club has no qualification other than being white and having a d!ck.

  • AustriaBargain on 05/06/2024 - 09:14
    +1

    plight of the Caucasian heterosexual men

    https://youtu.be/IXT_d8ytT4k?si=UZ4KBg2Ma1yFdnsP&t=70

  • justworld on 05/06/2024 - 09:17
    +1

    OP is one of those people who would still find something to complain about even if hiring was completely blind and based on your performance on an aptitude test or IQ test.

    • Crow K on 05/06/2024 - 10:39
      +4

      Short of a time machine to take them back to the 90s (when they peaked) I don't frankly think much would make OP happy, it's always grievance politics and how every else is getting a better deal these days.

      The thousands of words they wrote in defence of Bruce Lehrmann/critique of Brittany Higgins on these forums are a good insight into their thoughts. I just wish their partner would stumble across them and find out how radical their Gnarls has gotten.

  • Fredfloresjr on 05/06/2024 - 09:41
    +2

    I hire people based on their gender, Age and Nationality as I want a diverse and equal gender ratio in my workplace. IDGAF about their merit, I can always train them.

  • payless69 on 05/06/2024 - 10:27
    -1

    The votes speak for it.

  • Ocker on 05/06/2024 - 10:55
    -1

    Some people have too much spare time on their hands.

  • Dollar General on 05/06/2024 - 10:58

    You mean like religious schools only wanting to employ teachers that are of the same religion and beliefs, which they have an exemption to do?

  • Benoffie on 05/06/2024 - 12:05

    You shouldn't be able to discriminate but honestly, and I say this having a disability, it is patronising as hell to go through those processes for positions that supposedly help me not be discriminated against.

    Seriously, just how hard is it to pick the best person and not be a dck during the process? 🤷‍♀️

    • morse on 05/06/2024 - 19:35

      Seriously, just how hard is it to pick the best person and not be a dck during the process?

      Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen, harder than you’d think.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/06/2024 - 12:34

    this has to be a bait for the woke rage merchants that spend their life posting here, on r/Australia and on twitter whilst watching re-runs of QandA

  • Nillionaire on 05/06/2024 - 12:50

    Thanks, now I'll start discriminating against people yapping about meritocracy

  • Stuj on 05/06/2024 - 12:52

    I find it so adorable that some people here seem to think that the world is a level playing field and that merit is purely applied equally across society… now isnt that a woke way of thinking

  • tonka on 06/06/2024 - 00:33

    Shouldn't there be a secret Ozbargain room by now, where the 'right people' can go and wear funny hats and discuss this stuff.

  • Dorge on 07/06/2024 - 00:38

    Eh, on a globalist scale whites are a minority. Also a race most inclusive of females in the workforce and open to peoples sexual orientation. Go figure.

  • screensaver on 15/06/2024 - 15:00

    I just discovered that age pensioners cant get the pensioner education supplement! But Disabilty and Carers can, what is that but not age discrimination. Some of us want to return to the work force as well

  • Chiyoko on 19/06/2024 - 20:29

    This has been known for ages and sadly a large majority of the masses don't have a clue. (even just extrapolating out this poll, around 1/3 people still agree even though a majority of people didn't consent!!!)

    We never consented to these laws, a large majority of people did not consent, but a large majority seems to believe the government is there to help them. The government is not there to help you. It doesn't even represent you because of how farcical the representation has been diluted.

    There will always be some shill that comes to protect the government, but in reality people need to openly state the truth which is that the government are just a bunch of armed thugs and when reduced to first principles, it's basically a criminal gang. They write whatever laws they want and get the police and military to enforce it, and they have been successful; but for how long will that remain as society continues to decay. They go around bombing people and stealing their resources. That's what a government is…

    This is why they are unable to revise how democracy is taught in the public education system. It is why they are so scared to teach about consent to young men, because it will radicalise them. They, politicians, will continue to say they will enforce teaching of consent, but it will never happen because they need to protect their government jobs. The government falls apart if the charade disappears.

    I think you will find most extremists are radicalised because the government is lying to them. Take for example the young boy that was indoctrinated by a group of ASIO officers. That was the most outrageous thing I've seen from a government body. They are clearly not protecting Australians and are instead growing the new set of home grown terrorists. How about you tell the truth to your youth and then the terrorists will have nothing to stand on, oh but wait, the government needs to be dissolved then… Well, let's let the youth decide then.

    I really wish the intelligence agencies would get a clue.

    In the media recently they kept writing about a new curriculum for public education, but they were too scared to implement it and so nothing became of it. Surprise, Surprise!

    We need change, and we need it fast to protect what we have left of this country.

    • Crow K on 24/06/2024 - 14:25
      -2

      These are all great points

      You should start writing letters to MPs saying these things, include a return address so they can acknowledge the good common sense of your arguments - they won't all own up to it but a bet a few of them will!!!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join