I suppose we could just wait a little till discrimination becomes unfashionable & then carry on as usual !

I don't get this discrimination thing.
If I don't like something or someone, I don't like them, end of.
I am perplexed at people who ask why.
Why do I have to have a reason, and who are you to demand that reason of me?
Apparently if I am not forthcoming with a reason,I am discriminating, and therefore a bad person.
If I do give a reason, I am still discriminating, even if that reason is justified.
So who's standards do we live by?
I say, your own!
We are all different, in different ways, we cannot/must not be forced into a mindset which appeases someone else, if it is going to leave you compromised.
Diversity quotas are a selfish, fools folly.
It serves no practical or positive purpose, neither physically, or financially.
Just because some morons dream up an idea, and some other morons think it is a good idea, does not mean it IS a good idea, and therefore should not be adopted.
We speak of democracy, well I can tell you democracy is just as flawed as any other form of public self management.
At any one time when a vote is counted, more often than not, we end up with a very close differential in the votes, (eg; a majority of 1 or 2%.
If we called it a 52% majority, in my books that's as good as half the population.
So one half get their wishes and what happens to the other half?
No, diversity quotas are a fallacy, a mistake in any language.
As other commentors here know, I am not a fan of women in top jobs, in fact I'm not a fan of these new age feminazis who keep pushing their bull, that women are equal to men.
That is a genetic impossibility and still they preach, knowing full well, it's not true!

Peferential voting is good thing as you don't end up with a politician
that the majority did not want.
Think how that would have helped the British parliament in its past
electiopns. All that mess of the last few years would not have happened.

ALTRAV- Thanks for your comments. I agree with your comments about the flaws in Democracy and the 52%. This seems more like divide and conquer by the government. I'd prefer to see a more local system in which there was 80% agreement- that would mean that there would be less laws- and smaller government. During the wars there was more community participation in community services- civic responsibility- people felt a greater ownership and cohesion in the community- less red tape- this compensated for a lack of government services. Ironically I am concerned with the apparent lack of laws for privacy and technology. Sadly government is often reactive rather than pro-active- this makes it difficult- for example for businesses- to predict changing realities.

Bazz- Good point on preferential voting- at least our system is better than the British. I know there are a concerning number in the Australian major parties that favour first past the post

My understanding is that recently the major parties have changed the rules on the "four percent of votes and electoral funding" to disadvantage smaller parties from competing as effectively. Now as of 2018 parties need to produce receipts to get the money- though for claims less than $10k it remains the same. This creates a relatively greater management overhead for these smaller parties that already struggle to get volunteers. The corporate major parties operations will presumably be unaffected.

http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/public_funding/index.htm

"After each federal electionor by-election, the Australia Electoral Commission (AEC) distributes money to eligible political parties, candidates and Senate groups to reimburse them for electoral expenditure. Payment of election funding is included in Division 3 of Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918(the Electoral Act). The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018 made changes to election funding which came into effect on 1 January 2019. A notable change is that claims for election funding above $10,000now require demonstrated electoral expenditure."

@Aiden

>Targets are not quotas and shouldn't be treated as such; there's no need to need to resort to discrimination to meet them.

Targets and quotas are the same. In both situations, there is a policy of ensuring that the composition of people matches a predefined ratio in terms of gender, ethnicity.

Unless by sheer coincidence selection based on performance happens to also achieve the target, one must, must, place someones identity/race/gender above their qualifications in order to achieve the desired result.

That is racial and/or sexual discrimination. To select FOR someone on the basis of race / gender, must mean selecting AGAINST someone on the basis of race / gender.

There is no question that discrimination on the basis of race and gender happens constantly. I know that the company I work for actively does this, and this was done by discriminating AGAINST candiates. The question is, why are people silent on this?