During the 1990s, I claimed that the then federal ALP government was introducing a ‘US-style culture of litigation’. Then Attorney-General Michael Lavarch’s extensive equal opportunity amendments nevertheless passed Parliament. Perhaps today they would be called ‘DEI’.
This was not just a scare tactic. In my view, the legislation was influenced by US practice.
New US President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency revolution is seeking to end Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and other related activities. Or at least, it is trying to. DOGE decisions have been challenged by 70 different lawsuits, on one estimate. A culture of litigation…
Unusually, DOGE is attempting to gain access to Treasury systems for payments. The agency or program might issue an order for payment; Treasury might just not respond. This however has been denied.
This access to Treasury payment systems was blocked by court order, although perhaps check again in a week.
On January 20, 2025 President Trump issued an Executive Order freezing foreign development assistance for 90 days, an order also under challenge. Foreign aid in 60 countries has stopped or is under question, and most USAID staff have been put on leave.
On January 22, 2025 President Trump issued an Executive Order ending DEI employees, programs and spending.
Elon Musk tweeted that ‘USAID is a criminal organisation’ and claimed that the Department of Education ‘doesn’t exist’ after his cuts.
‘What is this Department of Education you keep talking about? I just checked and it doesn’t exist.’
It is interesting that the Opposition Democrat response has been mainly legal, although public defence of the programs under attack exists. It may be difficult to defend, for example, a transgender opera, which is one of the examples given by White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, although some claimed that USAID did not fund the transgender opera but the US Department of State did:
‘$1.5 million to advance DEI in Serbia’s workplaces, $70,000 for a production of a DEI musical in Ireland, $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia, $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru.’
It is also interesting that much of this activity is by Presidential executive order, not new laws passed by Congress. It is easier to issue executive orders; Congress involves much ‘horse trading’, public justification, compromise, difficult people, and endless procedural delays. Even if the Republicans control both the House and Senate, as they do. The horse trading in Australia, with a progressive Senate, would be even more difficult.
The final shape of DOGE cuts, USAID, the Department of Education, and legal challenges may not be known for some time.
But it seems clear that in many respects the new Presidency is a bold break from the past. The old US worldwide imprint of DEI and ‘social progressivism’ will lessen. There will be a dogged rearguard action in US universities. They are already talking about ‘DEI equivalents’ that can survive attack.
The US led the world in introducing affirmative action, which began with an executive order by President John Kennedy in 1961, which used the term ‘affirmative action’.
The US continued to develop such measures to end ‘Jim Crow’, the system of discrimination against people of colour introduced after the end of the US Civil War (1861-65), which ended slavery.
The US Supreme Court ended affirmative action in university admissions with the 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which found that such discrimination violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. It followed decades of gradual erosion of the concept.
The US was highly influential, or even crucial, in spreading ‘DEI’ throughout the world. Presumably, the abrupt ending of such approaches in the US may also be influential.
The Australian Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 introduced a form of affirmative action, requiring companies with 100 or employees to file returns setting out measures to encourage equal opportunity, subject to the ‘merit principle’.
These are justified as ‘special measures’ of a limited period nature, although there is no sign of an endpoint. Strict compliance with the merit principle may vary.
During the 1990s I assisted the then Coalition Minister, Peter Reith, attempting to streamline the agency by seeking that paperwork required to be filed be reduced by 50 per cent. The agency did not do this, although it did amend many questions, and detail, that we suggested. The Act has been reviewed and replaced. The current Agency states on its website that:
‘Men continue to out-earn women across all industries and occupational categories, gender segregation remains deeply entrenched, and women remain underrepresented in senior leadership.’
There are of course difficult labour market arguments about the reasons for such differences. No economist simply assumes discrimination, but also examines career breaks to bring up children, different job preferences (playing with dolls or dump trucks in kindergarten), and so on.
As to streamlining government expenditure, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has been appointed Shadow Minister by the Coalition to conduct a review of government expenditure.
I am not aware of a similar announcement made by the present government. Bill Shorten, while overseeing the NDIS, conducted an extensive review of the expanding and unsustainable NDIS and cut costs with the support of the Coalition.
The Coalition is arguably closer to the US Republicans than the ALP, although it is not the same party, nor are we the same country.
The Elon Musk or USAID project or DEI cessation will not be simply replicated. The governmental systems are different, although a Prime Minister and Cabinet have executive powers, such as initiating redundancies, that can be exercised subject to more restrictive redundancy rules.
We will have reform and government with an Australian face. That will look like the ALP or Coalition (and perhaps independents), their governmental practice, language, principles, and subclauses.
But the US is an astonishingly dynamic and influential country. More Australians know of George Washington, the first US President, than the first Australian Prime Minister, Edmund Barton. Few would know anything about Barton even if they knew who he was; many would know a story about George Washington as a boy refusing to lie about chopping down a cherry tree.
In defence the US is the one essential country; what happens with defence arrangements is of fundamental importance for Australia, Asia, Europe and the rest of the world.
Even a new ALP Government would not be immune from these new influences. A Coalition Government will need to deal with strenuous political resistance.
