I agree totally with this post. I was disappointed that the Victorian Government made this decision. I agree with full female participation in the work force but they must reach these positions on their merits not quotas.
Not every female (or male for that matter) will ever reach the boardrooms of Australia, but it is always the boardrooms that seem to take up all the discussion about female work participation. I would like to see more interest taken in the vast work areas where most females work.

Have to agree with MARREELORRAINE.

The simple biological fact is, that men and women are usually wired differently.

And given that is so, men tend to see the big picture and delegate, whereas, the seemingly superior female tends to see the detail and or micromanage, as well as multitask?

I think we get the best possible results when we just marry these separate but enhancing the whole, complimentary qualities, and use them and team work to produce our best results and our finest hours!

We should not be searching for and promoting division; but ying and yang; and teamwork combinations, that work to and for our greatest advantage!

It just can't be reduced to incredibility immature argument and or, just winning and losing!

The self defeating battle of the sexes must end and instead see how best we can meld to the benefit of ourselves, our communities and the nation. And if that puts a more meritorious female, a male or a "human" on top, then so be it!

[Look, masculinity or feminism doesn't always necessarily come in male or female packaging! Just look at the Ma and Pa kettle (ying and yang) example, (she sang bass he sang soprano) to understand what I'm saying!]

We could make a useful start in that direction just by focusing on propping up instead of tearing down the tall poppy, and simply focusing alternatively, on promoting our sharpest minds, best ideas, complimentary teamwork, finest talent and the most positive results we can produce!

As opposed to the sex or the package it comes in, in isolation; or simply and mindlessly, served up in less than our very best, quotas!

What would work better are positive pathways, and a secret ballot in politics/on the parliament floor; as the normal order of business, would be as useful start in the right direction!

Which as the first consequence, would disable the bully and instead, empower our most persuasive and most eloquent speakers!

That's how you promote and support merit, rather than simply suppress it, which seems to be par for the course at the minute?
Rhrosty.

The point missed entirely here is that there is no gender equity, or any other type of equity at work here.

The entire & only reason for these rules it to buy the feminists vote. Yep feminism works in favour of a small group of women.

They had best be careful, as this cargo cult mentality will work against them too.

In some areas of the UK where this ridiculous stuff has been carried to the extreme, comes the story of an ideally qualified & experienced young lady, whose application for a particular position was rejected on the grounds of quota.

It appears that the white female quota of employees at a county council was full. She could not be given the job as on further Anglo-Saxons could be employed until the quotas for a number of brown skinned ethnics had been achieved.

As none of the 3 ethnicities in short numbers qualified for the job could be found, the position remained unfilled.

Well done feminists, & fellow bleeding hearts.

I oppose racism and sexism but recognise that at times it may be applied. It can be simply for security or other reasons. However, I do not accept that where the majority of board members happens to be males then any other male is to be excluded until sufficient females have been appointed. This mean that inferior females can be likely ending up being appointed because their superior counterparts being makes are excluded. In my view any woman who proves herself in her particular area may have ample of opportunities to become appointed. However half-wits/inferior applicants being appointed because of being female isn't going to advance society nor the cause for women.
Only a few days ago my Octavian wife commented I should take over doing the dishes. I made clear I had absolutely no problem with this. In fact I wouldn't mind doing the house work as long as she does all the maintenance, the heavy digging around the yard, etc. As she doesn't like dust, can't handle tools and equipment she decided she was better of the way it was. I was once a single parent with 5 small children and even doing home schooling and respect parents doing so. As such I know what home duties are about. But I also know that my wife for the first time painted something at the age of 80 and that was just the fence, with most ending up on the ground. she has her skills in cooking, etc, and I respect her for that.
There are women who are extremely good in organisation, etc, and I view they do not need a government to dictate a 50% quota. there are men extremely good at parenting and they do not need a government to dictate a 50% quota of men caring for kids and women to go into the workforce, including blue colour working, to make the 50%. Oops, that is what the Premier omitted, to include blue colour workers with a 50% quota of male-female ratio.

Daniel Andrews is just so right! This is such a good idea we must take it further. The FOOTY! In future Daniel can ensure that half his footie team are female, not just that but some must be old as well so covering all "Isms". No ageist or sexist or racist footy here surely.
Well not in Daniel's team anyway.
We can have a recap after the end of the season, what about a petition?