Discrimination against male applicants - QLD Police

Has anyone else seen the articles about the QLD Police's discriminatory hiring practices?


I work in the private sector in middle management and I know for a fact that in my current and previous companies, the 50/50 quota gets discussed behind closed doors when making decisions on who to hire, but I never expected to see such a public reveal from within a government agency.

For the record, I don't agree with a simple 50/50 quota and think that people should get hired based on merit only. I get that there are certain positions where having a particular sex may be more desirable (such as a counsellor or health professional that mainly deals with female patients or vice versa), but for the majority, whoever has the experience or capability should get the role rather than aiming for a 50/50.

It'd be interesting to see how many others have experienced this kind of thing at their place of employment. So fire away and share your stories about your employment and quotas!


  • +156 votes

    Welcome to the new Woke world - where common sense has been replaced with political correctness

    • +19 votes

      Don't get me wrong - I've seen what happens at work and how they hire. It pisses me off to get told that I have to hire "the female applicant" (or don't hire at all!) even when I think the male is better qualified and in a better position to do the job, but I assume that everyone turns a blind eye to it because, well, that's what the world is like nowadays.

      • +79 votes

        My HR manager is under qualifed
        Under experienced (zero HR manager experience)
        honestly the most incompetent person (zero idea about his actual job) you would have ever met

        however he is Gay and that seems to be more important than experence and actual ability to do the job….

        It is how the public sector works these days!!

        Diversity over the best person for the job

        It is why Australia is going backwards

        Note - Nothing against Gays the HR manager before him was also gay but he was fantastic at his job

        • +13 votes

          Don't mention gay you'll get negged

        • +5 votes

          Honest question, but how would they even know the person they're hiring is Gay? I mean there's no box to tick for sexual preference or orientation when you're applying for a job.

          • +2 votes

            @tongu: Guy was working here in a different roll HR roll (nothing to do with management) prior - openly talks about his relationship (which i dont have a problem with power too him)

            but was 100% unqualified for the roll - the worst part is because he is the manager of HR all complaints go to him and well he isnt going to sack himself!

            • +9 votes

              @Trying2SaveABuck: Does he work at subway and the rolls are too challenging for him?

              • +2 votes

                @gyrex: Funny enough he resigned today and is stepping down to another position in a businesses closer to home - seems even he thought he wasn't qualified for the job…goes to show not everyone is a bigot sometimes they are just talking facts

            • -1 vote

              @Trying2SaveABuck: Chicken roll or Pork roll?

          • +1 vote

            @tongu: My thoughts as well, it's not something you could prove in a job interview with out being #metooed.

          • +1 vote

            @tongu: I can tell you there is on the bulk of graduate applications along side non English speaking background and disability.

        • +1 vote

          Damn, I thought that didn't work anymore.
          Any tips on signalling? Do I just put a big rainbow on my CV?

          • +1 vote

            @flopsy: I wonder this too. And tick the Aboriginal box on everything.

        • +1 vote

          The world not just Australia is going downhill because of PC. Just look at the latest Oscar.

      • -8 votes

        Maybe the male is better qualified because they keep getting opportunities that the female doesn't? Just a thought.

        • +23 votes

          20 years ago. Yes. Present? No. Woman gets the same education, working opportunities and social standing as man now.

          • +20 votes

            @spedohero: That's no longer true. Men now have lower social standing than women.

            • +5 votes


              That's no longer true. Men now have lower social standing than women.

              If this were reddit you'd be at -3000, but it's true.

          • +4 votes

            @spedohero: girls actually are kicking males arses in education… no one seems to care though..

            • -8 votes

              @siresteelhell: The kick arses in "Studies" degrees - Women Studies, Medical Studies, Social studies, AKA degrees no one needs or cares about, I call them Barista Degrees.

              Not so much in Engineering and Science, degrees that actually do matter.

              • +2 votes

                @DainB: Does maths count? Girls get higher grades in maths than boys at all levels of education.

                • -1 vote

                  @Autonomic: School level maths? Nah, it does not.

                  • +3 votes

                    @DainB: I said all levels of education. Primary school to post graduate. There are also more women than men studying medicine in the US. Is medicine a women's degree now?

                    • -6 votes

                      @Autonomic: First of all, when you say maths please try make some distinction between maths studied in engineering degrees and maths studied in teaching or medicine. Those are not even from same planet.

                      And second - yes, medicine is women's degree, same as teaching. They always were. Is that a surprise to you?

                • +2 votes

                  @Autonomic: remember, the laws of mathematics don't apply in Australia - PM Turnbull said so, so it must be true.

              • +2 votes


                Not so much in Engineering and Science, degrees that actually do matter.

                I did an engineering degree 3 decades ago. Back then about 5% of the year were female. All were in the top 10% of the class.

                Same degree now, the only thing that's changed is the male:female ratio. The females are still typically high achievers.


                @DainB: IIRC, when education, degree, and hours worked are factored in, women actually earn more than men in some roles.

                I'll say it again, anyone stupid enough to believe in the gender pay gap myth purported by the various government councils needs a serious life check. It's the ultimate embodiment of refusing to think for yourself and being told what to believe based on corporate shitspeak.

                All it takes is one glance at the data to see through the political snake oil being sold.


            @spedohero: You mean in the dark old times of 2001?

            It was exactly the same back then too. Maybe if you went back 50 years there'd be a difference, but more in cultural expectations. The lessons in the schools were still the same to both sexes.

        • +12 votes

          Do you purchase goods and services depending on which companies have had the least opportunities to succeed, or do you look at who provides the best quality and value? I have no problems with women in any workforce, but the quota system devalues the achievements of those women that genuinely are the best candidate for the job.

    • +39 votes

      Long gone are the days of best PERSON for the job….

      Its all about quota's in most industries now.

      • -21 votes

        Define the ‘best person’ and what ‘job’ actually is. Policing is a diverse role. General duties in Bankstown is vastly different from being a detective investigating child sexual assault or organised transnational criminal groups importing 50 tons ice into the country. If you think that the only qualifications you need for the last two are to be a fit white heavily built 6.5ft male rather you’re delusional.

        • +23 votes

          They didn't say only hire Chad McBeefcakes, but instead hire the person (male or female) that's best for the particular role being filled, from among those applying for that role. Having mandatory quotas they need to fill each week though can stop them from choosing the actual best candidate which is why quotas are retarded.

          • +7 votes

            @GS9891: This. Also, add the fact that gender distribution is certainly not 50%-50% across the applicants (in certain roles, there will be less let applicants from one gender as that gender is simply not interested in that line of work. Let say less males apply to be a kindergarten educator). So you will end up with 10 from one gender and 2 from the other, but due to the quata you'd need to hire someone from that 2 - even if you have eg. 5, who is better fit for the job from the other gender). That is the real danger.

            They would need to appreciate the fact that not all job is desirable for both genders, forcing it won't help anything.

          • -16 votes

            @GS9891: And still no one defines what ‘best person’ actually means. Weak.

            • +13 votes

              @Icecold5000: Because it varies by industry and roles within that industry obviously. Hiring a 5ft female officer as a female sexual violence counselor or the like would make perfect sense over a beefcake 6.5ft male candidate, hiring the same 5ft female officer to patrol Kings Cross at 3 AM over the 6.5ft beefcake male candidate, all other things being equal, is much more stupid but a 50/50 quota may encourage them to make such insane choices.

              • +1 vote

                @GS9891: You're comment has too much common sense for woke people - surely they will label you a racist/sexist/bigot for no reason to combat such a rational argument

            • +1 vote

              @Icecold5000: 'best person's means what you would think it means. Well… Maybe not you. Let's say 'most people'.

              • -1 vote

                @bmerigan: So you know what most people think? How long did it take you to develop this hubris?

                • +2 votes

                  @Icecold5000: Comes with maturity

                  • +3 votes

                    @bmerigan: Define "best person"..
                    Let me try -
                    It is - person who has the most qualifications, experience and/or knowledge of a particular area and would be most effective in performing that role.
                    It is not - person of a particular gender, race, sexual preference.

                    Put it this way - if you had a brain tumor, who would you want operating on you? The person with the appropriate medical qualifications or the person chose based on their gender, race or sexual preference?


                      @ZoneDrone: applause
                      well put.

                    • +1 vote

                      @ZoneDrone: Typical completely biased example. The person operating on a brain tumour has well over a decade of tertiary education, not to mention many more years of clinical experience. No matter what their gender, race or sexual preference, they are qualified to be there.

                      Your example is more suited to entry level positions where little experience is required.


                        @Sxio: Biased example? In what way is stating a qualified doctor being the best person to do the job of treating a brain tumor a "biased" example?

                        If you disagree with my definition that the best person for the job is the one with "most qualifications, experience and/or knowledge of a particular area and would be most effective in performing that role", then what is your definition?


                    @bmerigan: But most likely delusion.

        • +1 vote

          "six women identified in the report who were recruited despite failing to meet the minimum entry standards had successfully graduated from the academy"

          They didn't even meet the minimum requirements… they were chosen because they are women… There is no definition of 'best person' that applied in this situation

          • +1 vote

            @Saars: If they can graduate then perhaps the entry standards need reassessed. Sounds like the standards could have been set to specifically exclude certain types of people. That used to be very common and has gradually gone away over the years, but there are still some situations where those exclusionary criteria are still in place.

      • -7 votes

        The problem with what you state is that the best opportunities for things like education, work and pay levels have traditionally not favoured minorities, therefore they don't get the shot at these jobs (not even including inherent discrimination). This makes the best person for the job are the people who do get the opportunities. This then just becomes a vicious cycle.

        How do you break this cycle? Some say a form of affirmative action is required.

        • +9 votes

          That is a loaded question but ill assure you that, you dont break it by just lowing the standards for those people who are minorities or those who are discriminated against

          You help them raise there standards - lowing the bar is a lazy solution it a grass roots problem - it fixes nothing, causes more problems in the long run.

          This is why gender quotes are a terrible idea - it is also why hiring somebody solely because they fit a 'diversity' quota is a bad idea

          A easy example would be 'professional sport' they dont give players 1m a season 5 year contracts because they fit a 'quota' they give it to the players that deserve it - but to help minorities there is grass roots footy aimed at helping dis-advantaged communities like aboriginals which has sources a lot of top talent (making them 'qualified' for big contracts)

        • +2 votes

          You break it with equal opportunities at an earlier point rather than trying to skew the odds once it is already too late. Applying affirmative action to hiring doesn't work even if you think it works in isolated spheres like singular companies. If your graduating rates are skewed at, for example 90% to 10% for the genders and you as a company hire against 50/50 quotas then even if you succeed you just sap the talent pool for the 10% of graduates and cause skews at other companies in that industry where they are unable to hire any of the 10% and end up with 100% of the other gender. The people in that 10% get an unfair advantage, some people will look down on them even if they were actually well suited for the position and you still haven't actually addressed the graduating rates for the next cohort.

          Weirdly enough very few females seem to have been swayed into engineering/IT professions regardless of the consistently good pay and career opportunities in these fields. Programs like Robogals (in BNE) are much more effective as they target children at school and get them excited and thinking about different careers.

          As for some of your other comments - HECS (which also helps all the poor, not just random groups of minorities) and generalised or public payscales have already normalised University level education and the same pay levels for most with remaining issues belonging more to senior management where it absolutely makes sense for people to want to work with and back their friends or people they trust. You have other smaller remaining issues like rural vs urban and differences in some public schools vs private options but a lot of that boils down to cold hard cash more than it does necessarily for minority groups.

          Do you actually believe and advocate for what you're saying? Affirmative action is just a dressed up term for deliberate discrimination against people based on possessing what are seen as majority traits just like anti-racism is actually just racism


        yep so sad!

      • +1 vote

        And redundant apostrophe's. Don't forget those.

      • -1 vote

        Can you tell me the exact time this period ended? Would love to know when racism was officially over. Thanks.

    • +4 votes

      Next Job that I apply, I declare myself Jewish, Gay with ADHD and Dyslexia. That should increase my chances by about 60%.

      • +9 votes

        You should declare it as ADDH, just to sell it

      • +1 vote

        Jewish will have the opposite effect.
        Better say you're Palestinian.

        • +1 vote

          Being Palestinian would cost me all support from US Companies.


      Gender hires….sigh

  • +10 votes

    The article suggests that the matter has been addressed, with three of those involved suspended and one other has already left the police force. This was under a former Commissioner, in 2016 and 2017; the current Commissioner seems to have a more balanced view.

  • +54 votes

    It does actually make sense to try for diversity outside of any social pressures. Different people bring different perspectives and stop a kind of group think happening. For example the culture in parliament house (boys club in the extreme) or the culture within the US police force (it is ok to be more aggressive towards minorities - not officially but practicalities are wink wink nudge nudge it is fine we will all cover for you if you are witnessed). If you have people with similar backgrounds together for many years the culture gets skewed further and further to something horrible as time goes by, and the people within it might not even notice, until you have a victim speak out about it or many members of the public witness it together.

    • +13 votes

      In my view, the diversity within an organisation should reflect the diversity outside of that organisation, particularly where the organisation interacts with (or pretends to represent) the more general population.

      • +24 votes

        Will you be advocating for industries to fire women, or not hire them, in industries where women are over represented to make way for more men in areas such as hospitality, education and nursing? Or does it only work one way?

        • +1 vote

          My comment stands, except don't limit it to males / females.

          • +11 votes

            @GG57: What's wrong with merits and qualifications? Why do you put such an emphasis on sexual organs or skin colour for representation in industries where it shouldn't matter? Do you really care what the skin colour or sex of the nurse/doctor is and would you be offended if that particular organisation had more of a certain sex or skin colour than the general population?

          • -1 vote

            @GG57: Can't wait to see the mixed race Indigenous organisations and Chinese restaurants!

        • +6 votes

          This absolutely happens, men have a lot easier time getting jobs in early education because of the imbalance. It’s also beneficial for the kids, getting exposure to a mix of people is good for kids, there are differences in men and women so exposure to both is a good thing.

          Doesn’t matter how amazing a female nurse is if the patient wants a male nurse.

          Hospitality would make sense too. They hire hot women to appeal to men, you’re missing 50% of your market there.

          • +2 votes

            @freefall101: Do you agree with setting quotas based on sex/skin colour if if the market already has supply/demand worked out (as you put it)?

            For instance I can't think of any man I know who would want to work in early childhood education but I know women who do work in that field. Is there something wrong with the market to have more women in education if that's what they want to do and men don't?

            • -3 votes

              @studentl0an: What do you mean, supply and demand? Demand comes from the top to hire more males in those fields, even if they're not the best "on merit". It's a look at the whole education system.

              Exactly what Qld police were doing. Only there was no 50/50 target.

              If Qld police didn't set a 50/50 target but were still purposely hiring more women to get a more balanced police force would you be ok with it?

              • +11 votes

                @freefall101: You wrote that the market has a certain demand for people based on their sex in industries such as hospitality, and you wrote there's a big demand for men in early childhood education (that are not being filled).

                I'm pointing out that in both cases there are no quotas and the roles are filled by supply of the available workers. Those fields have many more women than men (because women want those roles and men don't). It's only in fields that are dominated by men that are implementing gender quotas (such as policing).

                I'm not OK with quotas. I find implementing institutional sexism (gender quotas) as a means to combat certain industries having more women or men - demeaning to humanity as a whole. We spent millennia getting to where we are now where people were finally getting picked by suitability rather than immutable characteristics such as skin colour or sex.

                Our freedoms to chose what we like are eroding day by day, and I think those who believe they are combating sexism, by implementing sexism in hiring processes, to be truly misguided and very divisive to society.

                • +2 votes

                  @studentl0an: I think the unsaid reason is that men are raised with the pressure to provide for a family, along with a higher dose of competitiveness. This is probably the key driver for men to take higher paying roles. The lack of males in this field is a result of that. If they paid more for early childhood education it might change over time, but the catch is it might make going to work a more expensive proposition, especially for the second income in the family which is more often a woman's.

                • +1 vote

                  @studentl0an: You missed my point, there is demand for more women in the police force too. It's not like other teachers are crying out for more men in the classroom, it's those at the top wanting to push a better balance. The same with policing, they want more women so that people in society see more women in the police force, so they can help a woman that might be scared of a male police officer (such as a rape victim).

                  The only difference is that in police they've set a target of 50/50, with the simple logic that it closely matches society. But in both industries they're not picking the best individual - simply being a man makes it easier to get a job in early education no matter how good of a teacher you are.

                  With policing simply being a woman makes it easier to get a job, but it's to improve the overall presence of the police force.

                  I disagree with it too, the solution isn't to fix it at the point of hiring but all the points leading up to it, figure out why men don't want to get into education and why women don't want to be cops. But I do kinda get the logic, society has built roles for men and women and changing that perception can only really be done by getting more of them in the jobs.

                • +2 votes

                  @studentl0an: If you have an industry - say policing - that has a current gender imbalance, how do you fix it? If you say "oh women don't want to do it"? What if they don't want to do it because they don't see enough women already there? I can understand why a woman may not want to go work in an organisation that is majority men. How do you combat that? It certainly won't fix itsself.
                  It has been shown time and time again that where you have a systemic imbalance in men and women, and there is no reason reason that men or women would be better in the role, then they should look at quotas.
                  This means hiring more women in police, more men in nursing or early childhood teaching roles, more women truck drivers etc etc etc.
                  Having a better gender balance is always better than a gender imbalance - always.


                    @seananderson: Why is having a gender balance better than an imbalance? Why do you care that kindergarten teachers or nurses are overwhelmingly female if it's by choice that men overwhelmingly don't want those roles? Do you really want to force a 50/50 split in industries that have more women than men, or is it only when there's more men than women do you want to see gender quotas as more important than merit?

                    What if men don't apply for those roles because men on average are not interested in being a kindergarten teacher or being a nurse? Would you want to still force those industries to have a 50/50 split by offering men wages much larger than women to encourage the 50/50 split?

                    What is really wrong with letting people apply for the jobs they want to, and get picked based on suitability rather than their sexual organs or skin colour?

        • +6 votes

          I work in an industry that is predominantly women and when men turn up, they’re seen as these rare magical unicorns and viewed as better workers, because why would a man want to work in such an industry. Stop with this reverse sexism whining. It just sounds like you’re all afraid you’ll lose your jobs - and if that happens, then maybe spend more time improving your skills and resume and less time trying to stymie progression just because it doesn’t benefit you.



            maybe spend more time improving your skills and resume

            Well that is the entire argument isn't it.

            If you are subject to discrimination then being better qualified won't land you the job anyway. You need to change your race or sex instead!

            To any fair minded person this is unacceptable.


              @trapper: Totally bro. Why even bother trying when the other sex or race is going to get the job anyhow?


            @VictoriousBboy: Would you advocate for better suited women to not be hired in your industry to make way for not as suitable men? Or do you only support sexism when it's to get more women into traditionally more male oriented industries?

            I don't call it reverse sexism by the way, I just call it what it is - sexism/discrimination.

            You seem to think of me as someone I'm not. I am doing very well in life and I have no reason to complain based on my own merit or achievements. I'm at a good place and don't have to worry about sexism for myself, I worry about it for others. I'm concerned about the direction society is going by implementing institutional sexism to combat perceived sexism. QLD police for instance have by admission been turning down better suited applicants for the role because they didn't have the right sexual organs - that is discrimination by definition.

            I just advocate right person for the job. Unlike you I don't care about a person's skin colour or sexual organs as criteria for job suitability. We have laws against this and we can thank the progressives of the past for making every person equal under the law (including not discriminating in the job hiring processes).

          • +1 vote

            @VictoriousBboy: Yeah. the people moaning about this stuff are always the ones who are at the bottom of the pile in skills and abilities.

            Winners go home and (profanity) the prom…. person of their choice.

    • +11 votes

      Weren't they hiring people who weren't qualified, failed physical and mental tests?

      I can imagine a Karen ticketing people with a random fine for talking back.


        They've done this with the military and firefighting in the US I believe. I'm sure I can find the articles if you'd like, but it was related to women having a high fail rate when it came to the physical tests

        • +1 vote

          they dropped some of the fitness requirements for the police grads because it was unfair on the women.. being generally smaller they who couldn't lift the 85kg dummy..it was to represent dragging your partner if they were down……lower the standards so everyone is happy…. YAY WOKENESS!!

    • +18 votes

      That's precisely why the "merit" argument is usually used in bad faith or ridiculous - Liberal party makes a point of saying "oh, no quotas, merit is obviously the most important thing" and then you see the boys club nonsense that ends up somehow being selected on the merit basis. "Merit" is basically being used as code for "non-quota".

      That's before even going down the rabbit-hole of "merit how, exactly?". Merit can be "having the right job skills" to "having the gender I prefer", and so on.

      • +1 vote

        When it comes to political position 'merit' does not mean smart, qualified, or even obviously competent. Merit means 'can secure the votes necessary for preselection', and hopefully the votes necessary to win the seat.
        Being able to secure a nomination is a very clear demonstration of 'merit'.
        That might mean they are good at branch stacking, it might mean they have the smarts to ally themselves to the right union, it might even mean they are sleeping with the right people - but all of those things qualify as 'merit' in this situation.
        Women are generally just a capable of this form of merit as men - and better in some areas. Whether they are willing to subject themselves to this type of merit is another matter - but plenty seem to be willing to try.
        I can guarantee that there are very few seats where preselectors all went to the same school.

        • +5 votes

          That is an interesting view, in that the 'merit' is all about winning at an election.

          Nothing about being the most representative of the electorate, or having any specific skills or knowledge that could assist in their elected role (e.g. medical, finance, primary industry, defense, etc.).

          Maybe that is what is wrong with politics in this country (and a lot of other countries).


            @GG57: There has NEVER been a rule in politics that the candidate needs to somehow represent the electorate - or even have any particular skills. Several politicians I have personal experience with are anti-social and/or personally unlikeable (certainly not all - but some). Many of them don't even bother to live in the communities they are meant to represent.
            Politics is just a game with very high stakes. Everyone knows the basic rules. If you can get pre-selected to a winnable seat, you played the game better than the other candidates for endorsement and maybe you've won.
            There is nothing in those rules that prevents women from playing the game or winning.
            Sometimes that takes more time and effort - you might need to work branches to get preselectors who are friendly, you might need to lift your public profile, you might need to align yourself with the right people - but again there's nothing that women can't do.
            What part of any of that is not 'merit'?


          "I can guarantee that there are very few seats where preselectors all went to the same school."

          I dunno, are you some high level preference whisperer who knows all the ins and outs of (nearly all) the seats? I'm going to have to be a little skeptical about that level of guarantee but arguing with charity (hey, it may be right):

          If we accept it as a given that "merit" is defined as having vote winning/populist abilities, it doesn't cover train wrecks like ScoMo stepping in to save Craig Kelly (who then leaves the party) or any of the seemingly endless cluster-scramble that's been the last couple of years.
          Politics is rife with members who shouldn't be there on that definition of merit (Laming, Christensen (perhaps), Bishop, Abbott are all easy picks - seatfillers who never should have been given a chance or overstayed their welcome but still kept getting preselected).

          Because that's the other side of the grift, preselection isn't just about "will this candidate be the best choice for the role", it's "who do we owe a favour to/whose turn is it for a shot at a six figure salary" as well.

          If 'mates looking out for mates' is still not getting the right results, then the 'merit' thing isn't working out after all.


            @CrowReally: Sometimes merit includes having the right backing. But being able to secure a preselection once to a winnable seat is definitely merit - and being able to keep being preselected shows even more merit - with merit in this case beings synonymous with knowing how to play the game, and win it.
            And merit in my sense does not necessarily mean winning the seat. There were plenty of women nominated and endorsed in theoretically winnable seats in WA who got wiped out in the last election.
            Also, one candidate who was successful in the last WA state election had been endorsed and run in several previous seats - all unsuccessfully - until she was finally able to step into a winning seat and take up the family business. Again, not the type of merit I think is worth much, but still some type of merit.
            The simple fact is that the vast majority of electors are not choosing their representative on some type of magical merit - they are choosing based on tribal affiliations, strong leaders, dubious promises, and perceived self-interest. You have the emotional motivation, then you justify it as the logical choice.
            If only the most capable or best qualified people were elected we would have a very different system of government - and possibly not a better one.


              @Almost Banned: My problem with the discussion is we're stretching the merit to basically suit whatever our current mood is.

              Sometimes merit seems to be bona fide winning the most seats in a fair hotly contested election (which is arguably a purer measure of 'I represent the community' than "I branch-stack and bribe my way to success"), but now we're also taking about "playing the game" and maintaining favours with preselectors being merit as well. Where does this end? Merit is winners winning?

              This is bordering on the logical fallacy of begging the question whereby you're assuming the truth of the argument you're making ("Of course the PM was the best candidate for the role, that's why he was elected").


                @CrowReally: No, being the 'best candidate' and having merit - while they may overlap - are not nearly the same thing.
                The 'best' candidate (whatever that means) may very well not win - either preselection or election - I suspect that would happen in pretty much every election.
                The PM 'deserved' the position because he managed to secure the majority of votes of the party room with the majority of seats in the lower house.
                The ability to secure those votes is 'merit' for the purposes of this discussion.
                As they say - you can't argue with the votes. The voters are always right (even when they are wrong). You get the votes - you get the win - that is sufficient merit when it comes to politics.


                  @Almost Banned: This "end justifies the means, most votes meant they had the most merit" is post hoc reasoning at its worst. Under that logic, a fascist who installs themselves as leader is by definition the most meritorious politician of all, with 100% of the votes. Not today. Redefining merit on the fly like this is exactly the same rubbery thinking that makes a mockery of the concept and frankly doesn't do a lot for me.

                  I appreciate you discussing the idea with me however, and thanks for your time.


                    @CrowReally: No-one claimed anything to do with having 'the most merit'.
                    The issue is, and has always been, whether securing an endorsement by a major party for a seat constitutes a form of merit in its own right.
                    Merit for the purposes of politics has always been about one thing - votes. Being smart, being qualified, being personable - all of these things may be helpful, but are all immaterial to being able to win votes.
                    To use your example there is indeed considerable merit in being able to convince enough people to install you in an elected position - regardless of how questionable your platform may be. In fact there is a good argument that the worse your platform the greater the merit involved in convincing people to vote for you.
                    I have argued that being able to secure votes is a form of merit - I am still not entirely sure what you have been arguing.



                    a fascist who installs themselves as leader is by definition the most meritorious politician of all

                    That is actually not far from the truth though.

                    You have to be a pretty extraordinary schemer to overthrow the government and install yourself as dictator. This is not an easy undertaking.

          • -1 vote

            @CrowReally: Whoops! you have of course, studied all those you have named and shamed, even at the least checked them on Wiki, or have you just watched the ABC and read the other lefty papers.