12 July 2022

Government demands new school builder have women contractors, all-female management

| Lottie Twyford
Join the conversation
501
Yvette Berry at a press conference

Minister for Education Yvette Berry said she was taking a “glass-half-full approach” to finding a suitable tenderer. Photo: ACT Government.

The ACT Government says it’s confident it can find a construction company to build Strathnairn School with a 100 per cent female management team and women employed by every trade subcontractor.

Minister for Education and Minister for Women Yvette Berry said the tender process for the $62.4 million project would be fair and competitive, despite the gender quota imposed on it.

“The tender process will be available on TendersACT as it normally is and that will go through a process to ensure it is fair,” she said.

“But we’ve put those requirements in place and it will be clearly understood by the construction industry that we’ve asked for them to engage in this project in [this] way.”

Despite the industry being plagued by skill shortages at present, Ms Berry said the government had the opportunity to be selective about who it employed on its construction projects.

Minister for Women Yvette Berry with seven women

Minister for Yvette Berry with some key players who will be involved in seeing the Strathnairn School project come to fruition. Photo: ACT Government.

Only 2.6 per cent of people working in construction in the Territory were women, according to the latest released Census data (2016).

The government aims to increase this to 10 per cent in the next few years, and Ms Berry acknowledged there was still more work to be done.

Nevertheless, Ms Berry, who said she was taking a “glass-half-full approach” to finding a suitable tenderer, was confident there were enough suitably qualified women working in management roles in the construction industry to lead the project on-site.

She wasn’t, however, able to say whether she thought the successful tenderer would be a local company or not.

“We’ll wait and see what comes out in the wash.”

Draft plan for Strathnairn school

A draft plan for Strathnairn School. Photo: ACT Government.

The conditions imposed on the project were part of an action plan and preparation was underway to ensure females were going into the construction industry, Ms Berry said.

This included a number of active programs in schools to expose girls to trades at a young age, which the Minister said was helping push women into the industry.

“We want to [increase the number of women working in construction] by allowing women and young women to see what they could be one day,” the Minister said.

“It’s not a job just for the boys.”

Michael Hopkins

CEO of the Master Builders Association Michael Hopkins said example projects like Strathnairn School were important to ensure the construction industry did more to increase female participation. Photo: Region.

CEO of the Master Builders Association Michael Hopkins agreed with the need for the government to take the lead on initiatives such as this one.

The MBA is also working on an all-female-led charity house project in Strathnairn and Mr Hopkins said the experience had shown there were no jobs in the industry which could not be undertaken by females.

“We commend the government on using its procurement power to demonstrate the role of women in the building industry because we know that young females need role models and to be able to see more experienced females working in the industry to attract them into it,” he said.

“We’re confident that local companies would tender for this project.”

Mr Hopkins said as more women in the construction industry are working in management roles, he was confident in achieving the 100 per cent goal, and he expected sub-contractors to come to the table and uphold their end of the bargain, too.

The National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC), the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and Ginninderry will partner with the government to ensure the project is run in line with its requirements.

The government says Strathnairn School will be open by 2025.

Join the conversation

501
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

At least we can finally rule out the ACT government giving an Education related tender to that bloke from Think Garden.

Might have saved the CIT $8 million if they’d applied this rule earlier. 😉

Please shoot me, I can’t do this anymore. What have we become?

Surely not legal, surely discrimination, not even April 1st

Working-age men will need to think about whether it’s worth setting up in Canberra.

Gary Jackson2:41 pm 14 Jul 22

Just like this government – A Woke Joke

Anything to divert the public away from the real issues at hand in the ACT …Schools and hospitals should be the main focus of this government not a proposal that smacks of blatant discrimination…an insult to all women who achieved their positions due to their ability- not their gender.

I expect Zoya Patel is already working on her opinion piece lauding the “100 per cent female management team” criterion and calling out the mysoginistic perspective of those who disagree.

Martin Keast8:13 pm 13 Jul 22

This is blatant discrimination – by the very agency that is currently upping the level and degree of anti-discrimination legislation!!!

Martin Keast8:11 pm 13 Jul 22

I am amazed at the hypocrisy – this is overt discrimination on the basis of sex. And it is the ACT Government doing it. Unbelievable.

Amanda Kiley4:45 pm 13 Jul 22

How insulting! Women have fought tooth and nail for decades for EQUALITY not to fill a quota (Federal Labor) or to be given jobs just because they are women. Wake up a parties – you are all failing big time!

“Fair and equitable” but the requirements restrict many of the major players. This is NOT in accordance with the ACT Government Procurement rules and is NOT going to result in a ‘value for money’ outcome for tax payers. Here comes another CIT contract scandal – who is advising these Ministers??!!

To the endless stream of people yelling “merit selection” or “best for the job”, what is your definition of merit? Discrimination works by allowing unmeritorious assumptions about merit to continue quietly; nothing changes, which is why affirmative action is sometimes needed.

I have supported affirmative action in the past, and am thus untroubled by the requirement that all principal trades teams include female members. I ask though, about consistency of the “all female management team” requirement. To illustrate, this is the current ALP policy on affirmative action for the ALP itself, as reported on the Australian Parliament web site, aph.gov.au. Note in particular the middle sentence, and later outcome.
“In 1994 the [ALP] adopted a mandatory 35 per cent preselection quota for women in winnable seats at all elections by 2002. This was replaced by a ‘40:40:20’ quota system from 1 January 2012 ‘to produce an outcome where not less than 40% of seats held by Labor will be filled by women, and not less than 40% by men’. The remaining 20 per cent could be filled by candidates of either gender. In 2015 the party adopted new targets: 45 per cent female representation by 2022 and 50 per cent female representation by 2025. The percentage of female ALP parliamentarians in the Commonwealth Parliament has increased from 12.5 per cent in September 1994 to its current 47.9 per cent.”

Not 100%, yet effective and proportionate change. If the ALP wants a “for us, this, for you lot, that” then some better explanation is needed.

The Riotact must be very pleased. 335 comments and counting. 🙂

Phydeaux,
I’d have to disagree. “Affirmative Action”, is just an attempt to obfuscate its real intention, active discrimination against certain groups.

It only serves to create new levers of discriminatory practice and entrench and strengthen the existing beliefs around “merit” that it’s purportedly meant to address. You don’t address supposedly systemic discrimination by entrenching actual systemic discrimination in policy/legislation/processes etc.

Creating equality of outcome over equality of opportunity benefits no one in the long term.

Well, that is very interesting, chewy.

Rather than responding directly, I will first ask, do you consider there has been any systemic discrimination against women in any area of employment over the last 15, 30, 50 or more years?

If so, what is your preferred model for dealing with systemic discrimination?

Hi, phydeaux

I agree with your intital proposition that affirmative action is not, in and of itself, a bad thing – there’s certainly a need to combat the systemic discrimination, which has occurred, in a number of areas over the last decades.

The issue I have is with a project advertisement that puts up a sign “male managers need not apply”. The minister has even suggested that in her search for an all-female management team if the successful tenderer is outside of the ACT that’s not an issue. So much for a government supporting local business in a difficult economic time.

If women want to participate in the building industry then removing barriers is a good thing. But you do not address discrimination against one sector of the community by discriminating against another sector.

I said in another post in this thread that a 50/50 (male-female) management team spilt would be a great outcome. Similarly giving preference to construction companies that have women on their books is also a positive action. The aim for 10% participation of women in the male dominated industry, which currently as the article says is 2.6%, is great – as long as women do actually want to participate in the industry.

However, when a tender process is so hamstrung in its ability to seek the best construction team which demonstrates it can deliver the best outcome, then despite Minister Berry saying, it “will go through a process to ensure it is fair” how can it possibly be considered fair?

I think this is yet another example of a government which has been sitting on the Treasury benches for too long and is arrogantly pushing an agenda that was never tested at the polling booth.

Phydeaux,
I would say that systemic discrimination has dropped significantly over the last 50 years, although I wouldn’t credit much of the change to discriminatory affirmative action programs. General social progress, legislation designed to create equal rights and the opening up of education has driven most of it in my opinion.

Today, I would say there are still pockets of discriminatory practice in Australia (on many fronts, not just gender based against women) but I also think it’s impossible to completely erase all discrimination because some of it is so ingrained in humans as a species.

Personal choice and SES status plays a far greater factor in outcomes today in countries like Australia with such strong social safety nets. Yet we still have people trying to override free choices and downplay SES status to create artificial “diversity” in areas that don’t naturally lend themselves to such.

I would also note that these programs only ever work one way and are very rarely directly linked to an inherent needs base. You’ll never see a government program to only hire men in lower participation areas for example. Women are not inherently needing of handholding and I find these types of programs extremely patronising to the women in these industries who are just as component as their male colleagues.

But even if we leave my personal opinions aside, you asked initially around what defines “merit”. Well the government has their own definitions and procurement frameworks and policies to define this for such projects. To which a proposal like this breaches numerous fundamental principles of.

They promote diversity, local jobs, best value for the community and indigenous employment values for example that are all not not met here.

It’s just a poor idea all around, both from an actual and perceived sentiment of what equality is meant to be.

JustSaying, in my top post, 12:59 pm of 13 Jul above, I too questioned the 100% so there is no debate to be had with me there. On the contrary, I suggested affirmative action with an example 40:40:20 basis has proven quite rapidly effective and is almost indisputably fair. I can lay out the rationale for that fairly concisely if anyone is unclear about it.
Given a current 2.6% participation then 10 or 20 percent with further targets would be a rapid acceleration in change.

OK chewy, so (sticking to the subject, not numerous side elements), you answer “what is merit” with “well this isn’t” seemingly referring to the 100% which I did not claim held merit.
Discrimination? Oh (says chewy) that used to exist but we are all fine now, and affirmative action had little to do with it. Presumably that explains why the ALP, using affirmative action, currently has over 45% female in the Reps while the Lib-Nats, who oppose it, have < 16%. (Quick estimate from a newspaper and APH comment). Yes, there could be other causes so should we look also at actions in other parliaments, other countries, and their outcomes?
You wrote: " 'Affirmative Action', is just an attempt to obfuscate its real intention, active discrimination against certain groups."
Really? who are the "certain groups" suffering active discrimination through affirmative action? Those in place probably aided by prior discrimination? Should we support further discrimination on the basis it already exists? How well do pious thoughts make change?
"Creating equality of outcome over equality of opportunity benefits no one in the long term."
No. Some affirmative action bears down hard on discrimination because it changes both role models and the group doing selection, so opportunity is unblocked and outcomes look pretty good. Claiming this is unfair violates the assumption of equal capability. Do you wish to argue for that?

Phydeaux,
“Presumably that explains why the ALP, using affirmative action, currently has over 45% female in the Reps while the Lib-Nats, who oppose it, have < 16%. (Quick estimate from a newspaper and APH comment)."

This is my point Pure numbers of representation are meaningless with regards to whether discrimination exists or not.

The fact that in general men and women have different preferences and make different life choices is not evidence of discrimination. Everything doesn't have to be 50:50.

Men also represent over 90% of the prison population, should we enact some quotas? Or is it simply a reflection that men commit more crimes.

Should Universities now enact enrolment quotas for men, seeing as women dominate graduates?

"Really? who are the "certain groups" suffering active discrimination through affirmative action? Those in place probably aided by prior discrimination?"

By its definition, "Affirmative Action" is discrimination. Your question is circular:
The people who are discriminated against by discriminatory practices are defined by the form of those practices.

And your second question is vindictive in nature even if that is not your intent. You don't fix discrimination with more discrimination and it is not reasonable to discriminate against current/future members of a group simply because other previous members of that group received favourable treatment.

Each person is an individual and should be valued as such and treated fairly and equally.

"No. Some affirmative action bears down hard on discrimination because it changes both role models and the group doing selection, so opportunity is unblocked and outcomes look pretty good"

Except this makes the assumption that the discrimination exists in the first place and is systemic and large in effect. I don't agree and there's very little evidence available to support it in Australia.

I'm also against the justification used. Its just a case of shifting the goalposts around what "equality" means to enact the exact same types of discrimination that we are supposed to be against. That type of thinking is dangerous as history has shown repeatedly.

I'm all for programs to raise participation in areas of historic disadvantage or discrimination but they should always be needs based and they should never involve active discrimination

Thanks chewy, you confirm my suspicion that you see (consciously or otherwise) your role as arguing to preserve privilege, by simply denying its presence or effect in discrimination. How many times have we seen that over history, all with the same discreetly deceptive denials of a problem? It is notable that you skipped a couple of opportunities presented in above posts to confirm an expectation of equality of capability in the roles to which I referred. However, you vigorously straw-man a perfect 50:50 in outcome, something I never said nor ordinarily expect.

Your opening paragraph manages both to be misleading and off-topic. After I show a difference apparently or probably resulting from affirmative action you change the subject to say numbers which are “pure” (what are they?) cannot show discrimination. Numbers, outcomes vs legitimate expectation, can show it, yet my subject was not that but effects of affirmation. Your reply is mere subject-switching and your “point” irrelevant. Your later attempted counter-examples are each different cases. I won’t pause to fisk them since their irrelevance will be clear to most.

“You don’t fix discrimination with more discrimination”
Again you betray prejudice by redefining improvement of genuine (non-discriminatory) opportunity for those oppressed as discrimination against the privileged group. It is fundamentally the same thread of argument used by racists (see America, to keep it away from some of our own politicians). How is righting a wrong “unjust or prejudicial treatment” (being the relevant definition of discrimination)? It follows that you wish to preserve privilege.

“… it is not reasonable to discriminate against current/future members of a group simply because other previous members of that group received favourable treatment”
“previous”? You seek to mis-direct again. You argue here that in new selections rectifying previously discriminatory behaviours would “discriminate” against those hopefuls who would previously have been privileged. That is a bit daft.

Phydeaux,
And I see that you vigorously assert privilege and discrimination exist so as to justify actual systemic discrimination.

Last comment got cut off, try again.

“It is notable that you skipped a couple of opportunities presented in above posts to confirm an expectation of equality of capability in the roles to which I referred”

Not really notable, I thought my opinion was clear. For most roles, there is generally an equal spread of capability amongst all groups. But it isn’t universal and there are clearly types of roles where certain group characteristics do provide an advantage.

And again.

“However, you vigorously straw-man a perfect 50:50 in outcome, something I never said nor ordinarily expect”

It’s not really a strawman I was providing an example outcome, you were the one who brought up percentages as a seemingly good metric, I just extended it. And your response leads nowhere. If your point was simply that discrimination can change outcomes, it was never in question. The simple fact that you don’t want to call it discrimination is meaningless. If you wanted however to show that it was a good outcome, I can’t agree. There’s nothing showing that to be the case.

It’s just a political party that has changed the shape of its parliamentary representation by actively discriminating against sections of society. I’m also not saying that there isn’t discrimination in other political parties but seeing as regular research has shown that men are far more likely to be interested in politics, joining political parties and running for parliament, it makes perfect sense that they would dominate.

And once again, I don’t redefine anything and I find it amusing that you would claim that whilst doing that very thing. Yours is the same argument used by those who wish to entrench discrimination, defining groups that deserve special treatment so you can justify discriminating against others.

I’m promoting the end to that sort of action, that individuals are treated as individuals and not lumped in to groups based on meaningless criteria so that you can either discriminate for or against them.

And I don’t deny privilege exists but I do deny that the biggest privileges are due to discriminatory practices or group characteristics such as gender or race in Australia. SES factors are far more relevant to opportunity, yet are rarely seen in these types of initiatives.

“previous”? You seek to mis-direct again. You argue here that in new selections rectifying previously discriminatory behaviours would “discriminate” against those hopefuls who would previously have been privileged.”

This is our fundamental difference it seems. I say previous because I reject the notion that the discriminatory privilege you claim exists today, does so.

Those who have benefited from previous discriminatory practices are not the same people who you are proposing to discriminate against now. They are not inherently privileged today and receive little to no benefits from previous injustices.

In the topic of this article, there is zero evidence that women are discriminated against to any large degree in the construction industry and nor that the proposed measure will allow previously discriminated people to benefit.

As the other article about this topic discusses, it’s far more likely that interstate women who work in the industry will be brought in by larger companies to run and work on this project. If you think privilege exists, there is a perfect example of it.

“It’s just a political party that has changed the shape of its parliamentary representation….” (wrote chewy, somewhere)
I see that now you agree with my original point, that affirmative action, first instigated in the mid-90s in the case of the ALP (and variously by other entities world wide), was successful in changing the shape of representation so that it somewhat matches the society of electors; at least in one major party, not in the one that did nothing. You have thus agreed with my general inference that proportionate affirmative action works to expedite equality of opportunity where there is prior evidence of unjust or prejudicial treatment.

After that, it remains with you and others on the right to claim that equality is oppression.
Not even George Orwell tried writing that, although he came close with ‘freedom is slavery’.

Phydeaux,
Yes I have agreed with you that discriminating against groups can change outcomes.

In your example by artificially creating equality of outcome in a political party through active discrimination against sections of their membership group.

No more, no less.

And I don’t claim equality is oppression, so I’ll leave that to others who wish to take up the argument.

Discrimination on the other hand is a form of oppression which is why I’m against it. Strange that others are so accepting of it, well at least when it suits it seems.

Discrimination is unjust or prejudicial treatment. Difference is not inherently discriminatory.

In your scenario, who got fired? Nobody. “Innocents” are unaffected. Equal selection among ~equal groups happens. At the utmost stretch of meaning your “discrimination” is against a biassed result, not against any person or group. Have you considered that elimination of an 80:20 or more extreme result is true for both groups? It appears not, because your commentary is completely one-sided, implicitly favouring men in the case under discussion. What should we make of that?

You are aware of stratified sampling? It enforces proportionate selection by group to reduce bias for more accurate and reliable results. In science, failure to control bias (which by your case would be “discrimination” against certain [=biassed] outcomes) produces poor science and unreliable knowledge.

You simply assume unbiassed selection, where bias existed between similarly competents. Enforcing unbiassed selection among ‘a priori’ equal groups can not be unjust or prejudicial. Indeed, your approach is very much that equality is oppression; where it suits you.

Phydeaux,
No one got fired, they had their opportunities reduced by the enforcement of biased selection criteria.

“Difference is not inherently discriminatory.”

Exactly my point. The fact that men or women as groups might choose different paths despite being equally competent, is not evidence of discrimination.

Trying to override those individual choices through creating artificially equal outcomes is not equality.

You assume that a bias exists in order to justify discrimination. I disagree.

Chewy, you wholly missed the point of my comment about difference not being inherently discriminatory. Most of your argument is founded on conflating the definitions of discrimination as an act of choosing (i.e. difference) with discrimination as injustice. An argument so ill-defined cannot fly.

Your actual response follows the standard conservative trope that women are uncommon in certain roles because they do not want to do them. This has been proven false time and again, or why are there any women in the workforce at all? Shouldn’t they be home in the kitchen, as they all “preferred”, or has some discrimination been in play? I asked this early and you never responded to it other than to say “it’s all better now”; discreetly deceptive denial, as I said at the time.

Your remaining paragraphs bear no relation to the issue. I have been entirely clear, several times, that where discrimination exists then affirmative action is both effective and fair as a response. You have agreed with the first part and seek to mislead about the second by redefining exclusion of bias as being biassed (against bias!).

With my clarification here of what I meant by “difference” my post of 12:58 pm on 16 July is a sufficient summary and is not challenged by your reply.

Phydeaux,
“Your actual response follows the standard conservative trope that women are uncommon in certain roles because they do not want to do them. This has been proven false time and again,”

It has not remotely been proven false, in reality, no evidence of systemic active discrimination is ever provided in support of the claims that discriminatory practices are the main driver for differences in employment outcomes both in individual industries or in the economy as a whole. It’s also illegal already.

But for example, we often see the headline gender pay gap numbers used as evidence of this supposed discrimination but when those figures are normalised for hours of work, industry, experience etc. the gap is almost non existent. I’ll also note that they never even bother to include individual choice as a variable that they should normalise for. It’s just assumed as you do to not exist. Convenient.

“Shouldn’t they be home in the kitchen, as they all “preferred”, or has some discrimination been in play? I asked this early and you never responded to it other than to say “it’s all better now”; discreetly deceptive denial, as I said at the time.”

Ironically you deride some women’s choices to become home makers whilst apparently thinking women are equal to men.

And I answered your previous query. Historically there was government enacted policy and legislation preventing full engagement by women in the workforce. Over recent decades, these barriers have been removed and even reversed in cases such that no such systemic barriers exist. Whilst some discriminatory pockets remain, by far and away the biggest difference is now due to individual choice.

And as I do believe men and women are equal, I’m not going to deride the free will of people who want to choose their own life pathways. As long as they are willing to understand that those choices come with consequences. Outcomes will always vary, it’s part of life.

“Your remaining paragraphs bear no relation to the issue. I have been entirely clear, several times, that where discrimination exists then affirmative action is both effective and fair as a response.”

Funnily your response bears no relation to the issue because you have not shown that discrimination exists in the first place, so your thoughts of a response to that discrimination don’t really matter.

But even if you did somehow show that discrimination does exist, my response would not be to entrench new discriminatory practices in response, it would be to remove the original discrimination.

Which is exactly what has already occurred.

Chewy, your proposition that I derided choices is ludicrous and you know it. You are trying for false dichotomies as well as straw. It seems you are getting desperate given the collapse of your claims of unjust prejudicial action, or as I described, …”redefining exclusion of bias as being biassed (against bias!).”

“no evidence of systemic active discrimination is ever provided … It’s also illegal already”
That is very odd, Chewy. Why make illegal something that never happened let alone persisted? Might more than fifty years of relevant research have fooled people into thinking prejudice existed?

I can see the prejudice; right here. You seem happy to “remove barriers” (or at least, for someone else to have done so in the past, not now) so long as actual or potentially prejudicial behaviour is not among those. Only the prejudiced could consider it unfair to do so.

Phydeaux,
This seems to be going nowhere and we aren’t going to agree. I think your unproven claims of systemic discrimination are equally ludicrous.

“The ACT Government says it’s confident it can find a construction company to build Strathnairn School with a 100 per cent female management team”
Really? Isn’t that perverting the tender process – surely a 50-50 management team would be the ideal for which to aim, but at the end of the day doesn’t Minister Berry want to ensure the best company to undertake the project is selected or is she just looking at “jobs for the ladies”?
“the tender process for the $62.4 million project would be fair and competitive, despite the gender quota imposed on it” Overt favouritism of one sex over another is dsicrimination by any measure.
Ms Berry, who said she was taking a “glass-half-full approach” – maybe she shouldn’t have touched the glass until after she had publicised this project.

Nothing this government does surprises me anymore. Its time for change.

Not only will this cost more but will take longer to build with suck a small number of ladies willing to join the building industry.

What ever happened to competitive tenders.

Capital Retro9:59 am 13 Jul 22

Would this would mean all the toilet seats would be fixed permanently in the down position?

If electors accept this latest stunt from the local Greens Labor ACT government they should also accept future government contracts being awarded to those who exhibit other traits. Like gender fluidity, LGBQIT, climate change views, political opinion, ethnicity…. Clearly the Minister is totally unaware or unconcerned about the recent CIT debacle and the contract to Mr Complexity Thinker. Government contracts should be awarded fairly and on the basis of value for money. Not nepotism, favouritism and personal indulgence.

SigmaOctantis10:29 pm 12 Jul 22

I think women have misunderstood what equality means. It means being treated equally to a man, it doesn’t mean being a man.

Finagen_Freeman10:03 pm 12 Jul 22

Stupid. Just stupid. Mixed gender yes. Non binary yes. But 100% forced all one type of gender. Nope. Nope. Dope.

You can’t find male tradies to get things done right now. YVETTE you might as well demand this school is to be built by unicorns!
The world would like to see more females in all of these roles but the truth is the majority of females just aren’t attracted to these mucky hard physical jobs.
The reverse is the same for roles like early childhood, increasingly teachers, psychologists, nurses, human resources…

Can only assume this is Yvettes way of at all in the delivery of another school that she can not find teachers to work at.

HiddenDragon8:23 pm 12 Jul 22

Virtue-signalling on stilts regarding gender about building something in a (recently named) suburb with a name which reeks of white, colonial, Anglo-Celtic (blah blah blah) imperial heritage – this is such a weirdly conflicted little town, but exactly what you would expect from a government which is the political equivalent of two week old sliced white bread sprinkled with hundreds and thousands.

swaggieswaggie8:07 pm 12 Jul 22

About time! Next we need all female Bus Drivers, all female Posties, all female Truckies and all female Uber drivers. Having guys in these positions is disgusting!

This sounds like a corruption trick to rig the tender but make it look “fair” and “progressive”. Only the larger Tier 1 or Tier 2 firms (LendLease etc) would be able to group together an all-female team to manage the project. The smaller local companies don’t stand a chance.

If there ever was an example how out of touch, hypocritical and past their used by date the ACT government has become, this is right up there.

For a government who likes to trumpet the importance of “equality” and “diversity”, they sure enjoy engaging in a whole lot of active discrimination.

How about a hospital with all male nurses or a primary school with all male teachers?

In some professions males are not allowed to be in the presence of a female client without a female employee being present.

The requirement that this new school needs to be built by a company with 100% female management is about as loopy as it gets. The school may never get built !

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.