Among the many changes harming our national way of life, the worst of them is the decline in meritocracy.
Traditionally, the Australian ‘fair go’ principle was based on treating people on merit.
It didn’t matter if someone was male or female, straight or gay, black or white, the best person for the job usually got the job.
But now in the era of identity politics, positions are being reserved for people on the basis of race, gender and sexuality – regardless of merit.
This is happening so frequently, Australia now runs the risk of falling victim to ‘identity fatigue’.
Two months ago, for instance, when the Defence Force was caught out introducing female-only recruitment, it was big news.
People were upset that well-qualified male applicants had no chance of serving their country in uniform simply because they had the wrong genitalia.
Yet two weeks ago, when the Australian Federal Police (AFP) also announced a female-only intake, the political system barely let out a whimper.
As the Leftist march through our institutions has become more persistent are Australia’s opinion leaders growing numb to its impact?
Surely not, given what’s at stake.
The safety of our people.
The fairness of our society.
We must resist these changes at every turn.
In the AFP, gender apartheid hasn’t been introduced from a position of strength.
It’s a product of weakness: the failure of past practices (quotas and targets) to lure women into the police force.
The AFP has a policy of increasing the proportion of “women in protective service officer (PSO) roles to 35 percent by the end of 2021.”
To do this, it needs to employ an additional 154 females.
An internal ‘Workforce Strategies’ memo dated 29 August 2016 (obtained under Freedom of Information) reveals the impracticality of this task.
It records how, “AFP Recruitment approached all candidates on the existing merit list to ascertain interest in becoming a PSO via a November or January training course – 177 people responded positively, however only 16 of these were women.”
With a “commencement rate of approximately 50 percent” this means that only eight qualified women could be employed, well short of “the 70 percent female composition requested by the AFP Commissioner”.
At a rate of eight per annum, it would take decades to reach the 35 percent target.
From this hopeless situation, propelled by identity politics, the AFP has turned to female-only recruitment.
Yet this crude, discriminatory measure is also likely to fail.
Vast numbers of women are CHOOSING professions other than policing.
And why wouldn’t they?
Lucrative employment sectors in Australia, such as the law, education, GP doctors and the Australian Public Service, now have more females than males.
Why do women need to join the police if they think they are better suited to careers elsewhere?
What’s the next step? Holding a gun to their heads?
The AFP has abandoned merit-based employment in the name of organisational ‘diversity’.
Commissioner Andrew Colvin believes ‘gender balance’ will foster a wider range of workplace skills but in practice, this has been a disaster.
“The place is totally demoralised”, a Federal policeman told me last week, “Automatically picking women makes the male officers feel like we are not wanted here, we’re not part of the AFP’s future.”
Another officer spoke of how bullying and intimidation from recently promoted female managers is now commonplace.
“They have turned the AFP into a political battleground, with conflict between those of us who don’t support the gender focus and those who do”, he said.
“Why can’t they just pick the best person for the job and allow us to get on with our work?”
Ironically, female staff have not benefited from the changes.
They are seen as second-class workers, having gained their positions through a gender-biased process.
For women who actually got in on merit, this is doubly damaging.
They are as good as any man but have to suffer from a workplace perception of favouritism.
The AFP also has a bizarre focus on questions of sexual identity.
Its Diversity and Inclusion Strategy wants “LGBTI members to reflect 10 percent of the total AFP workforce by the end of 2020”.
This is a significant over-representation, given that only 2-3 percent of Australians are gay or transgender.
It also raises an important measurement issue.
How does the AFP know the sexual preferences of its job applicants and existing staff?
An officer told me: “They must collect the information from the security clearances we have to do.”
“On sensitive jobs, we have to answer personal questions about sexuality and relationships, for fear of blackmail and other risks”.
This seems extraordinary: the AFP has a gayness quota, implemented using security-related information about its employees.
Most people would regard this as a shocking invasion of privacy, especially from an agency otherwise chartered with protecting the privacy of Australian citizens.
In any case, how does being gay or female or any other personal identity make someone a better police officer?
There is no evidence in any part of the world of this being true.
The AFP has huge responsibilities for keeping Australians safe, especially in its counter-terrorism work and protection of public officials.
It is betraying this sacred obligation by selecting staff on criteria other than merit.
It should never have moved away from an authentic Australian approach to recruitment: judging people fairly and giving the job to the best available person.
This article was originally published by The Daily Telegraph. Read the original article here.