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 civil servant and ex-police officer who was suspended with pay after saying “my white n***er” to an Indigenous colleague has tried to argue that the term is “just a word” used by his daughter and her friends often used as a swear word. greeting.

Bryce Waite, 61, was stood down as compliance officer for the Queensland Government’s Department of Environment and Science over comments he made at a work dinner at the Oxford Hotel in Rockhampton on February 22, 2023.

Mr Waite had been debating the racial slur with another colleague when a young Indigenous female colleague joined the conversation and became angry after hearing him say the offensive phrase.

When challenged about this, he said: ‘What, it’s just a word, n***er.’

Mr Waite tried to challenge the suspension in an appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, but failed last week. He has now been asked to demonstrate why he should not lose his job.

He is not allowed to comment until the case is resolved, but his partner Sharon told Daily Mail Australia the father-of-two believes the situation is unfair.

She said he also regrets the interaction and now knows not to use the term at all.

Mr Waite (pictured) tried to defend his use of a racist term during an appeal against his suspension

Details of the incident were revealed in the appeal judgment, delivered on June 11 by Commissioner Jacqueline Power.

According to the published judgment, Mr Waite attempted to appeal his suspension by claiming he did not know the female colleague identified as Indigenous.

He also said it was her choice to take part in the pub conversation, suggested no one would have been offended if she had stayed out, and she took his comment out of context.

He repeatedly claimed that the term was “just a word”, he meant no offense and was sorry she was offended, while continuing to use the term in his submissions.

Mr. Waite likened the situation to being a Jewish person who had no problem being called a “Jew” — an argument that was shot down by the commissioner, who pointed out that “calling someone a Jew is not anti-Semitic’. .

‘It is a consequence of one’s religion. There are many derogatory terms for someone who follows the Jewish faith, which they may not readily accept,” she said in her judgment.

Mr Waite then attempted to justify his use of the term by comparing it to other profanities commonly used in the workplace, which the Commissioner found was “not the same” and showed a failure to “understand the seriousness of the term’.

Mr Waite (pictured) has accepted that he can no longer use the offensive term

Furthermore, the Commissioner found it troubling that Mr Waite sought evidence from a former colleague at another workplace to demonstrate that no offense was intended, as their team would regularly use the term in everyday conversation.

He claimed his former team had “worked together to debunk the term.”

The commissioner rejected that claim, saying, “They didn’t do that. They simply showed that occasional racism on that team was an acceptable, everyday occurrence.

“The fact that another employer tolerated that term as a coping mechanism is an abhorrent reflection on that team and that employer.”

Another defense 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 comments, Mr Waite argued that his human rights had been violated because he was denied the right to an opinion, freedom of speech and expression.

However, that argument was also rejected on the grounds that these freedoms are not unlimited, and Mr Waite admitted that he had used a racist term in a submission to the committee.

His employer responded to the alleged human rights violation in further submissions to the committee, saying: ‘[Mr Waite’s] his apparent ignorance of racist comments and his belief that it is ‘just a word’ are not a human right.”

The incident took place last year at the Oxford Hotel in Rockhampton (pictured), north Queensland

The original decision to suspend Mr Waite was upheld by the Commissioner.

She eventually discovered that he did not show genuine remorse because he seemed sorry that the colleague had been offended, suggesting that it was her fault that he felt offended.

“That is not a sincere apology,” was the verdict.

“Whether or not you sincerely apologized [the co-worker] does not change the fact that the violation occurred, and that [she] taken offence.’

‘In any case, the department finds the comment highly inappropriate [her] response to it. [Her] response demonstrates the impact that comments of this nature can and do have.”

Waite’s partner Sharon, who has been undergoing cancer treatment throughout the ordeal, told Daily Mail Australia he wants his job back and feels he has been treated unfairly – although he accepts he used the term incorrectly.

“Bryce had no opportunity to mediate with the girl,” she said.

“He apologized to her, but a supervisor’s process to resolve it that way fell through – they made it clear they wanted to fire him.”

Sharon said 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, seemed to use it affectionately.

“A lot of language that used to be indecent is now acceptable language,” she said.

“For 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 that Mr Waite had left the police force in Victoria some time ago and had worked in various departments of local government for 30 years without incident.

He had only been on this particular job for four months when he was suspended for misconduct, meaning he has now been on paid suspension for significantly longer than he was a working employee.