Schedule 12: Government Sector Employment Act 2013 No. 40
Section 63
Overview
The amendments relate specifically to Section 63, which concerns workforce diversity. The implications of these amendments have the potential for inequitable treatment of government sector employees, pose practicality issues in implementing these standards, and have broad societal and resource implications.
​
-
Complex Definitions: Omit “and people with a disability” and insert instead “people with a disability, sexual orientation and variations of sex characteristics” The question has to be asked how is a person's exual orientation equivalent to a 'disability or relevant to doing one's job'? In addition, the terms "sexual orientation" and "variations of sex characteristics" are quite broad, which could lead to difficulties in consistently applying these definitions across different departments and roles.
-
Priority Displacement: By explicitly including these new categories, there is a risk that other critical diversity factors, such as socio-economic background or age, which are equally important in a truly diverse workforce, might be sidelined or receive less attention, elevating an individual’s choice of sexual preference, (which should remain personal and not be a relevant factor in an employment context), and “variations of sex characteristics” as “diverse” categories are in need of protection and promotion. Why? And there is of course the issue of diversity hire over merit-based recruitment, regardless of factors unrelated to work capability and performance.
-
New Standards and Quotas: The amendments introduce a diversity and inclusion standard, which includes specific quotas for recruitment and promotions based on the newly defined diversity categories, and mandated leave for gender-affirming care. These measures could potentially lead to reverse discrimination, and again where decisions are made based on quotas rather than merit.
-
Resource Allocation: Implementing these changes could require significant resources, potentially diverting funds and attention from other public services. Additionally, the mandatory diversity provisions could lead to increased administrative costs and complexities. Additionally, what other unverifiable “condition” or “innate” state of being entitles staff members to paid leave? Women fought hard for decades to be recognised in the workplace and yet *still* remain disadvantaged as a result of their biology, with no recourse to “opt out” or “identify” out of. Such policies leave workplaces ripe for abuse and are an affront to women being recognised as equal in an employment context.
-
Workplace Dynamics: Enforcing these new standards might pressure organisations to prioritise gender identity over other diversity and operational needs. This could suppress diverse opinions and create a workplace where not all employees feel equally represented or respected.
The specific focus on sexual orientation and variations of sex characteristics, coupled with the introduction of binding quotas and standards, risks creating a workplace environment that prioritises unverifiable gender identity at the apex of workplace policy. These amendments impose obvious practical challenges in implementation, potential reverse discrimination, and divert focus and resources from other vital diversity and inclusion efforts. Why is someone’s choice of sexual partner and their “variation of sex characteristics” “diverse” categories needing promotion in the workplace? Why is a person’s sexual orientation or “variation to sex characteristics” required to be known in the workplace or for hiring purposes? What kind of “inclusion” is Mr Greenwich hoping to achieve here?
​
Recommendations
-
Maintain merit-based employment practices without imposing quotas for unverifiable identities, to ensure fairness and equality in government sector employment.
-
Withdraw the proposed amendments
​
​