It shouldn't even be a factor IMO, it should just be on merit alone. If that means the best candidate is a woman, or black, or gay should make no difference.
I don't necessarily disagree, though I think the background of candidates is relevant and being a woman/black/whatever can make a candidate more suitable for a role.
I think it's really pertinent to Board structures, where ultimately you want a diverse range of viewpoints and experiences around the table.
I'm critical of the Rugby Australia Board because I think it's dominated by white privately schooled men from Sydney or Brisbane. Considering the high number of people from non-Anglo backgrounds playing our game, or people from outside Sydney/Brisbane, I think it would be wise for them to look outside this narrow demographic.
A popular (and accurate) critique of RA is they only act in the interests of a narrow group of people on the Eastern Seaboard, without much regard for the rest of the country. When you look at the Board, it's hard not to see why those decisions have been made in that way.
I would agree to an extent, but the issue is more the schools or clubs they played for and socio-economic background rather than the colour of their skin. I doubt having private school educated non-anglos or women will make any difference. It's not like Dilip Kumar's reign as CEO was a resounding success.