Your daily adult tube feed all in one place!
Bryce got stood down from his job after uttering an eyebrow-raising phrase to his workmate at dinner. He says it was 'just a word' he's seen on TV - but it has been ruled MUCH more than that
EXCLUSIVE
A public servant and ex-policeman who was suspended on full pay after saying 'my white n***er' to an Indigenous colleague has tried to argue the term is 'just a word' that his daughter and her friends often use as a greeting.
Bryce Waite, 61, was stood down as a compliance officer for the Queensland government's Department of Environment and Science over comments he made during a work dinner at the Oxford Hotel in Rockhampton on February 22, 2023.
Mr Waite had been debating the racist slur with another colleague when a young, Indigenous female co-worker joined the conversation and became upset after she heard him say the offensive phrase.
When challenged on the matter, he said: 'What, it’s just a word, n***er.'
Mr Waite tried to fight the suspension in an appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, but it failed last week. He has now been asked to show cause why he shouldn't lose his job.
He is not allowed to comment until the matter is finalised, but his partner Sharon told Daily Mail Australia the father-of-two thinks the situation is unfair.
She said he also regrets the interaction and now knows he should not use the term at all.
Bryce Waite (pictured) was suspended for misconduct over a racist statement at a work function
Mr Waite (pictured) tried to defend his use of a racist term during an appeal over his suspension
Details of the incident were revealed in the appeal judgement, which was handed down by Commissioner Jacqueline Power on June 11.
According to the published judgement, Mr Waite tried to appeal his suspension by arguing that he did not know the female co-worker identified as Indigenous.
He also said it was her choice to join the conversation at the pub, implied that no one would have been offended if she'd stayed out of it, and she took his comment out of context.
He repeatedly claimed the term was 'just a word', he did not mean any offence by it and was sorry she got offended, while continuing to use the term in his submissions.
Mr Waite likened the situation to the fact that he was a Jewish person who had no issue being called a 'Jew' - an argument which was shot down by the commissioner, who pointed out that 'calling someone a Jew is not anti-Semitic'.
'It is a result of a person's religion. There are many derogatory terms for a person of the Jewish faith that they may not accept quite as readily,' she said in her judgement.
Mr Waite then attempted to justify his use of the term by comparing it to other profanities frequently used in the workplace, which the commissioner found was 'not the same' and showed a failure to understand 'the gravity of the term'.
Mr Waite (pictured) has accepted that he should not use the offensive term anymore
Further, the commissioner found it troubling that Mr Waite sought evidence from a former colleague at another workplace to show that no offence was intended because their team would use the term regularly in day-to-day conversations.
He claimed his former team had 'banded together to disempower the term'.
The commissioner rejected that claim, saying: 'They did not. They simply demonstrated that casual racism in that team was an acceptable, everyday occurrence.
'The fact that another employer tolerated that term as a "coping mechanism" is an appalling reflection on that team and that employer.'
Another defence was that his daughter and her friends often used the slur as a greeting, which the commissioner said 'ignores the social and historical context of the term'.
In his submissions, Mr Waite argued that his human rights had been violated because he was denied the right to hold an opinion, freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
However, that argument was also rejected because those freedoms are not without limits, and Mr Waite admitted using a racist term in a submission to the commission.
His employer responded to the supposed human rights violation in further submissions to the commission, saying: '[Mr Waite's] apparent ignorance of racial slurs and his belief that it is "just a word" are not a human right.'
The incident took place at the Oxford Hotel in Rockhampton (pictured), northern Queensland, last year
The original decision to suspend Mr Waite was upheld by the commissioner.
She ultimately found he failed to show genuine remorse because he appeared to be sorry that the colleague was offended, suggesting it was her fault for feeling offended.
'That is not a genuine apology,' the judgement read.
'Whether or not you gave a genuine apology to [the co-worker] doesn't alter the fact that the offence occurred, and that [she] took offence.'
'The department considers that the comment is highly inappropriate, regardless of [her] response to it. [Her] response demonstrates the impact that comments of this nature can and do have.'
Mr Waite's partner Sharon, who has been undergoing cancer treatment throughout the ordeal, told Daily Mail Australia he wants his job back and believes he was treated unfairly - though he accepts he was wrong to use the term.
'Bryce had no opportunity to have mediation with the girl,' she said.
'He did apologise to her but it didn't go through the process of going through supervisor to sort it out that way - they made it clear that they want to terminate him.'
Sharon said Mr Waite really didn't think there was anything wrong with the word, partly because he had seen it used casually on American comedy shows and people in younger generations, like his daughter, appeared to use it affectionately.
'A lot of language that used to be indecent is language is now acceptable language,' she said.
'To him, it was just another word he used, and he didn't use it to be mean or racist, but he accepts it shouldn't be used.'
Sharon explained Mr Waite left the police force in Victoria some time ago and had worked in different departments of local government for 30 years without incident.
He had only been in this particular job for four months when he was suspended for misconduct, which means he has now been on paid suspension for significantly longer than he was a working employee.