John Singleton with Bob HowardRip Van Australia (Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1977), pp. 74-76, under the heading “Discrimination”.

Most of the activity currently being directed towards eliminating discrimination might be well-intentioned, but it will be self-defeating. Consider the following points.

1. All people should be equal before the law. No law should discriminate on grounds of race, religion, colour, age or sex. In other words, the law should recognise and protect the equal individual rights of all people. However, while this is simple in concept, and probably agreed by all, it gets very muddled in application. For example, there are in existence literally thousands of laws which are discriminatory in one way or another. Means tests discriminate, as do licensing laws, tariffs, standards, wage legislation, welfare payouts and education standards, to name but a few.

2. However, private individuals and/or organisations do have the right to discriminate. This is a point that is being increasingly ignored, or denied. Implicit in the right to own property is the right to use and dispose of that property as one sees fit, provided only that one at all times respects the equal rights of others. Thus, you have the right to decide who you will allow into your house, who you will lend your car to, and who you will hire to work for you. We may disagree with your reasons for choosing who or what you choose, but we cannot morally force you to change your decision, no matter how irrational it might be. If you only allow Jewish people into your home, or only lend your car to beautiful women, or only hire black Catholics to work for you, that’s you’re business. After all, it is your home, your car and your business! It cannot be argued that, for example, by only hiring black Catholics, you are infringing the equal rights of the other applicants. If more than one person applies for the job, you have to choose between them on some basis, all of which can be said to be discriminatory. If you choose the most skilled applicant, you are discriminating against those with lesser skills. If you choose the most highly qualified applicant, you are discriminating against those with lesser qualifications. All choice involves discrimination.

Obviously, if you are a businessman, you would be a fool to choose only black Catholics. It would be more in your interest to base your choice on skill or competence, than colour and religion, and that’s what you would, in fact, do.

But the point is that you should not be forced to hire anyone on any grounds except your own. If any other grounds are forced on you then your right to freedom of choice has been violated, as has your right to property. If you don’t like your choices, then we can try to persuade you to change, even pay you to change. We can refuse to work for you; we can refuse to deal with you. If enough people do this you will have a choice to make — change or go bankrupt. You will almost certainly change.

3. It is not possible to legislate prejudice out of existence. You cannot force people to like one another. Any attempt to do so will only create hate.

4. There will always be some prejudiced people around, no matter how perfect a society may be. But, by and large, most people will be guided by their self-interest, rather than their prejudices.

So, even though you might prefer black Catholics, if you have to choose between a lowly skilled black Catholic and highly skilled white Protestant, you know which one you would choose, and which one most people would choose. It wouldn’t be the black Catholic.

5. Which all goes to show that, in the final analysis, there’s only one way to get anything in this world, and that’s to earn it. Short cuts don’t work in the long run. Legislative short cuts usually don’t even work in the short run.

People cannot be forced to accept, like or respect others, even if they’re Prime Ministers or Governor Generals.