In states and territories across Australia, the political and legislative consensus has always been that discriminating against people on the basis of race and/or nationality in the context of employment is illegal.

This consensus has existed for decades. The relevant legislation is enacted to ensure Australia complies with its obligations under a host of human rights treaties. Many employers spend millions of dollars training their staff in cultural sensitivity issues to ensure they not fall foul of anti-discrimination laws.

Even in the most security-conscious workplaces, avoiding racial discrimination is a given. If you don’t believe me, take a flight to New Zealand (or anywhere else overseas) and then fly back into Sydney. You’ll see people of all ethnic groups working at Customs, a frontline national security agency.

Last week, the South Australian Equal Opportunity Tribunal heard an application by multinational defence and aerospace contractor BAE Systems. The company was awarded a lucrative American defence contract, a condition of which meant it has to effectively breach the South Australian Equal Opportunity Act ’s provisions prohibiting racial discrimination.

The Adelaide Advertiser reported on Friday that BAE was seeking an exemption  from racial discrimination laws “to comply with U.S. security controls over sensitive defense material. Under the controls, nationals from proscribed countries are not permitted access to material exported by the U.S.”

And which countries? If it was just Iran, North Korea or Cuba, fair enough. But the list includes some 11 countries including China and Vietnam. So it’s ok for Vietnam to host an APEC meeting but it isn’t OK for Vietnamese Aussies to work for a defense contractor. We can openly talk of selling uranium to China but Chinese Aussies can’t work for a defense contractor.

Predictably, the Advertiser ’s editorial supported the application, comparing it to private schools choosing to accepting more boys that girls (or vice versa) in enrolments (??).

The Deputy Premier Kevin Foley has also supported the exemption application, presumably so as to save South Australian jobs from being lost should the company take their operations elsewhere. BAE Systems’ application is hardly novel. Similar exemptions have been awarded to defence contractors in other states.

In NSW, an Australian defence contractor and a multinational company involved in aerospace have all received exemptions. The notion that persons from particular countries or of particular backgrounds might be more prone to breach security makes little sense to me.

For instance, does it make sense to presume that someone born in Vietnam is a security risk? What if they fled Vietnam? What if they have no loyalty to the current Vietnamese government? What if their mum is Vietnamese but not their dad? What if they just don’t care about politics?

Still, our equal opportunity laws provide for exemptions. I hope that exemptions aren’t granted so easily that short term economics triumphs over long term human rights obligations.