Mike O’Connor: Thing big companies are doing so they won’t be called racist

Some employees are being given extra days off because of their race. How does that promote inclusiveness, asks Mike O’Connor.

T

here was a subject titled Logic when I was in high school, but I chose to study Latin instead, which apart from occasionally being helpful in translating the menus in Italian ­restaurants, was a complete waste of time.

However, If I had chosen Logic, perhaps I would now be able to understand how the confirmation of a special benefit upon one racial group to the exclusion of all others can be paraded under the banner of inclusiveness.

International conglomerate KPMG is the latest corporation to embrace this peculiar brand of inclusiveness in announcing that it would award Indigenous employees an extra day of paid leave each year to “participate in a significant cultural, ceremonial or community date or event”.

KPMG is offering a day of paid leave each year for Indigenous employees to participate in significant cultural events. Picture: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Origin Energy is even more generously inclusive, giving three days’ paid leave for cultural or religious ­activities for Indigenous workers.

It’s not difficult to see how the pressure builds. One company does it and then another and before too long if you don’t acquiesce and join the rush to prove what a shining example of inclusiveness your business is, you will be accused of being racist.

Indigenous senate candidate ­Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who has Warlpiri and Celtic heritage, has ­described the moves as “paternalistic” and “infantilising”. “We shouldn’t be making exceptions for one group of Australians and not others,” she said. “It’s saying ‘we’re going to treat you differently because of your heritage, we’re not going to treat you the same’, which is what needs to happen here.

“Indigenous people need to be made to feel as though that is part of the fabric of this nation,” she said.

What about those of Greek or ­Polish or Irish or those from any other ethnic background who may want to celebrate a culturally or historically significant event who have to do so in their own time? Why is Indigenous culture more worthy and deserving than that of any other nation? Much is made of the multicultural nature of Australian society, a fundamental feature of which is equality.

Rather than embrace this, in the rush to establish their “woke” ­credentials, companies are now ­openly practising reverse racism by discriminating against non-Indigenous people. I don’t have an argument with people getting extra days off as long, as they are given to everyone.

It’s called getting a fair go, mate.

Beverage giant Coca-Cola stumbled in the “woke” stampede recently when it directed staff to an online course suggesting that white people should “try to be less white”.

While denying the LinkedIn Learning series was a focus of the company’s curriculum, a company spokesman said it was “part of a learning plan to help build an inclusive workplace”.

Try telling the white people ­sleeping rough, struggling to get by on social security payments and ­battling to feed, clothe and house their families how privileged they are.

Setting one group apart from the rest of society is a recipe for division and disaster, but is an issue that will soon confront the nation as moves continue to create a separate body comprised exclusively of Indigenous people and appointed only by them to advise federal parliament.

One pathway to do this would be to give everyone a say in whether they approved of such a fundamental change to our parliamentary system by way of a referendum. Another would be to legislate it without the electorate getting a say and using the country’s obsession with Covid-19 as cover.

The only reason to oppose a ­referendum is the fear that it will fail because many people will not feel comfortable with a proposal that will create two classes of Australians, one which has its own special body that can demand parliament accord the people it represents special treatment.

The suggestion is that such a body could only make recommendations to federal parliament. However, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which any government that rejected recommendations it did not deem to be in the national interest would be accused of racism.

It has been argued that because ­Indigenous people make up less than 5 per cent of the population, they cannot have a sufficiently loud voice in parliament. The suggested solution, then, is to award one group a special privilege while denying it to others.

Inevitably, those who oppose the creation of a special Indigenous body will be accused of racism in the same way that those who opposed gay marriage were accused of homophobia.

So be it. Everyone gets a say, but nothing good will be gained by ­making some Australians more equal than others.