Over the past few decades, our entire public service has been taken over by a female tsunami, including many firmly intent on pushing policies set to favour women at the expense of men.

The figures are extraordinary. We now have 67 per cent females in the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 70 per cent in health and in social services, 68 per cent in attorney generals, 62 per cent in education and employment, 59 per cent in foreign affairs and trade, even 51 per cent in treasury and 51 per cent finance.

FEMALES

Overall, 31 of 96 government agencies have 70 per cent or more females.

These are the people writing government policy for our country, deciding how to spend our money, and determining what matters and what doesn’t.

Hardly surprising then that women’s business is always on the agenda, with “Ministers for Women” in both Commonwealth and State governments, while men’s issues are ignored.

It’s not just the federal bureaucrats who are throwing their weight around.

Last month, the ACT government announced they are requiring successful tenders for the build of a new school to have a 100 per cent female management team on site.

We’re talking about the construction industry, where women represent only 12 per cent of the workforce.

Yet Canberra building companies are now expected to come up with an all-female bunch of bosses to run building sites for the government contracts that keep the big firms in the business.

Of course, that is the ACT, which appears to be dominated by feminist bureaucrats. But it has been shocking to trace how successive federal governments have caved to feminist pressure and allowed women to run the show, all in the name of gender equity.

It all started with our former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, naturally, who proudly introduced positive discrimination to ensure more women were recruited into the then male-dominated Australian Public Service (APS).

Suddenly public service job descriptions required a “demonstrated commitment to feminism”.

CONSERVATIVE

Hester Eisenstein, an American who joined their ranks at the time, wrote gleefully about the “spectacle of very traditional-looking male bureaucrats, in pin-striped suits and conservative ties, reading over the credentials of women candidates and discussing seriously their respective claims to authentic feminist commitment”.

The old boys rolled over and ushered in a new feminist era so that by 2001, half of all federal public servants were women.

We can plot the relentless female takeover as it gathered steam over the past 30 years, despite variations in politicians’ enthusiasm for the matriarchal government.

John Howard made efforts to stem the tide, announcing that with women having reached a majority in the APS, they would no longer be considered a disadvantaged group.

But Malcolm Turnbull’s government ensured feminist’s long march through these government institutions kept rolling on.

As just one example, his government’s strategy aimed for more women on public service boards. Within just five years, most members of APS boards were women.

Similarly, women are being relentlessly recruited to take the places of men throughout the public service, and they now have the majority of both executive and senior executive positions.

More women than men are being recruited at almost every level in the APS, including executives, with women receiving a disproportionate share of promotions as well.

No surprise that they now have most of the plum jobs – with men now a minority at executive and senior executive (SES) levels.

The very senior rank, SES 3, still comprises 73 per cent men, but this imperilled species of the top dog must be feeling the female hoards snapping at their heels.

So how do the bureaucrats explain away the embarrassing lack of gender diversity in our national public service?

PRETEND

Basically, they just pretend it’s not happening. One rare exception was in 2018 when Deputy Public Service Commissioner Jenet Connell admitted that the 60 per cent female APS resulted from “such a positive bias towards women” that young men were complaining of feeling disadvantaged.

She mentioned the famous APS study on blind recruiting, which found when they removed references to the gender on job applications, far more men got through the blind process – proof of the APS’s strong bias against men.