Exemption: Catholic Education Office
Notice of inquiry: Application
        for exemption under Sex Discrimination Act section 44: Catholic Education
        Office Scholarships for Male Trainee Teachers  
The Catholic Education
        Office, Archdiocese of Sydney applied on 30 August 2002 (with a supplementary
        application dated 16 October 2002) to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
        Commission for temporary exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act
        1984 ("SDA"), section 44, to offer teacher training scholarships
        to male students only.
- Click
 here to access the application from the Catholic Education Office, Archdiocese
 of Sydney, for a temporary exemption under section 44 of the Sex Discrimination
 Act 1984 ("SDA") together with a copy of a 1999 study entitled
 Men in Primary Schools: An Endangered Species?
- Click
 here to access the supplementary application made on 16 October 2002.
The proposed scholarships
        are to be limited to male students completing their Higher School Certificate
        in 2002. The scholarships, providing financial support and incentives,
        aim to encourage male students to enroll in Primary Teacher training at
        University for the 2003 academic year. Male students accepting the scholarship
        would commit to working within Catholic primary schools for a fixed period
        following completion of the teaching degree.
An exemption is sought
        in respect of sections 21(2)(a) and 22(1) of the SDA. Section 21(2)(a)
        prohibits an educational authority from discriminating against a student
        on the grounds of the student's sex, marital status, pregnancy or potential
        pregnancy by denying the student access, or limiting the student's access
        to any benefit provided by the educational authority. Section 22(1) prohibits
        a person from discriminating against another person on the grounds of
        the latter person's sex, marital status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy
        by refusing to provide goods or services or make facilities available,
        or in the terms or conditions on which the goods, services or facilities
        are provided, or in the manner in which the goods, services or facilities
        are provided.
The exemption is
        sought for a period of five years. The Catholic Education Office has indicated
        that the provision of male-only scholarships may form part of a longer
        term strategy to encourage males into primary teaching and that its impact
        may not be immediate. The advertising of scholarships in 2002 may result
        in increased male applicants in subsequent years.
HREOC's policy in
        dealing with applications for exemptions under the SDA is that interested
        parties should be given an opportunity to participate where the application
        presents issues of public importance.
Accordingly, submissions
        in response to this application are sought by 3 December 2002.
        Submissions should preferably be made in electronic format, and may be
        made to exemptions@humanrights.gov.au.
        
Submissions may also
        be made to: 
Sex Discrimination
Unit, HREOC
GPO Box 5218
Sydney NSW 1042.
The following discussion,
        and questions posed in the course of that discussion, may assist persons
        considering making submissions.
Exceptional nature of exemptions
As indicated by HREOC's
        published policies on exemption applications, the power for an administrative
        body such as HREOC to grant exemptions from laws established by the Parliament
        is exceptional, and should only be exercised where clear justification
        is shown. This is particularly the case since exercise of this power under
        the SDA is not subject to disallowance by the Parliament, unlike powers
        provided under many Acts of Parliament to modify the effect of those Acts
        by later regulation.
HREOC is nonetheless
        bound to consider applications for exemption on their merits and will
        grant exemptions where it is satisfied that this is appropriate. Inappropriate
        refusal, or granting, of an exemption by HREOC is subject to review by
        the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on application by any interested party.
Summary of questions to be
        addressed
To assist HREOC in
        its consideration of this exemption application, submissions are requested
        on the following issues (discussed in more detail later in this notice):
-  Is there an arguable
 case of unlawful discrimination should an exemption not be granted?
- Would an exemption
 in this case be consistent with the objects of the SDA?
-  Should an exemption
 be granted irrespective of consistency with the objects of the SDA?
-  Are there conditions
 which should be imposed on the granting of an exemption in this matter?
Overview
HREOC's policy on
        exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act states: 
While all applications
        for a temporary exemption are considered on their merits, the circumstances
        in which it will be necessary or appropriate to grant such exemptions
        will be limited. This is because any exemption must be consistent with
        and not undermine the objects of the Sex Discrimination Act.
The most relevant
        object is that of eliminating discrimination as far as possible, on the
        ground of sex.
As indicated in HREOC's
        published policy, the circumstances where granting an exemption from the
        operation of legislation will promote or be consistent with the objects
        of that legislation will be limited. However, such circumstances may arise.
Temporary exemptions
        under the SDA have rarely been granted. 
Is there an arguable case
        of unlawful discrimination should an exemption not be granted?
HREOC, in common
        with decision makers exercising comparable powers under other Australian
        anti-discrimination laws (see for example the decision of the Victorian
        Equal Opportunity Tribunal in Re Doveton North Primary School) will not
        grant an exemption where it is unnecessary - that is, where there is not
        at least an arguable case that unlawful discrimination will otherwise
        be found. 
Comments are requested
        on whether there is a substantial risk of the provision of scholarships
        to male students only being found unlawfully discriminatory so as to justify
        an exemption under the SDA.
Would the exemption sought
        be consistent with the objects of the SDA?
The Catholic Education
        Office has suggested that the granting of an exemption in the terms sought
        would be consistent with the objects of the SDA, namely section 3(d) which
        provides that the SDA has as an object the promotion of the "recognition
        and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of
        men and women". The proposed provision of scholarships to males only
        is a measure which the Catholic Education Office believes will address
        the imbalance between males and females in the primary teaching profession.
        According to statistics quoted by the Catholic Education Office in their
        application, male primary school teachers in NSW and ACT schools numbered
        937 (18 per cent) compared to 4265 females in 2001.
The constitutional
        foundations of the SDA include the Convention on the Elimination of
        All Forms of Discrimination Against Women ("CEDAW"). Moreover,
        one of the SDA's objects is to give effect to certain provisions of CEDAW
        (section 3(a)). Article 10 of CEDAW obliges States Parties to take all
        appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in order
        to ensure them equal rights with men in the field of education, and in
        particular to ensure that women receive the same opportunities to benefit
        from scholarships and other grants (Article 10(d)). 
An issue which arises
        is whether the Catholic Education Office's proposal to provide scholarships
        for males only contravenes the express words of paragraph (d) of Article
        10 of CEDAW.
In considering that
        issue, it may be relevant to consider whether offering scholarships to
        male students only to study primary teaching at university will have the
        effect of increasing the number (and proportion) of male primary school
        teachers in the longer term. It may be that the successful recipients
        of such scholarships are male students who would have undertaken primary
        teacher training regardless of the existence of the scholarships.
The Catholic Education
        Office suggests that the proposed scholarships may fall within the scope
        of section 7D of the SDA as a special measure intended to achieve equality.
        It suggests that the provision of scholarships to males only is a "strategy
        to attempt to address the specific imbalance between the proportions of
        male and female teachers in primary schools". 
A special measure
        is a type of affirmative action. Affirmative action may be defined as
        the systematic identification and elimination of the institutional barriers
        that women and other groups affected by structural disadvantage encounter
        in areas of public life.
Comments are requested
        on:
-  The underlying
 causes of the imbalance between males and females in the primary teaching
 profession. In particular, the Commission seeks submissions regarding
 any relevant survey information, information regarding the wage levels
 for primary school teaching as compared to other professions and other
 statistical material that might assist the Commission to better understand
 that issue.
- Whether the proposed
 scholarship scheme will, in fact, have the effect of increasing the
 number of males in the primary teaching profession. Submissions on this
 issue might address studies or outcomes of any similar schemes. A consideration
 of this issue may, in part, require an assessment of the value of the
 scholarships to be offered. The value of the proposed scholarships is
 not addressed in the temporary exemption application and the Commission
 specifically invites the Catholic Education Office to address that matter.
-  Whether the proposed
 scholarship scheme falls within section 7D of the SDA as a special measure
 intended to achieve equality; and
- Whether granting
 an exemption in this matter would be consistent with the objects of
 the SDA.
Should an exemption be granted
        irrespective of consistency with the objects of the SDA? 
If an exemption in
        this matter is not regarded as consistent with the objects of the SDA
        it would still be necessary to consider whether an exemption should nonetheless
        be granted. Although HREOC's policy is that exemptions as an exercise
        of statutory power should be consistent with the objects of the enabling
        Act in each case, HREOC is also required to consider each applications
        on its merits.
The Catholic Education
        Office, in its application, refers to two reports which contend that the
        presence of male teachers is important in creating a school culture that
        values learning and the pursuit of knowledge equally by males and females
        and that the reduced numbers of male teachers has wide-ranging educational
        and social ramifications.
Comments are requested
        on whether (assuming that the exemption sought is not consistent with
        the objects of the SDA) HREOC ought to grant exemptions from the SDA in
        this matter on the basis that the objective of the male-only scholarships
        ought to be given precedence over the terms, or over the objects of the
        SDA.
Are there conditions which
        should be imposed on the granting of an exemption in this matter?
Section 44 of the
        SDA permits HREOC to impose conditions on the granting of a temporary
        exemption. An exemption on conditions may be consistent with the objects
        of the legislation where an unconditional exemption would not. For example
        in a number of cases HREOC has granted exemptions under the Disability
        Discrimination Act 1992 to public transport operators on condition
        that the operator agree to and implement actions to increase access for
        people with disabilities during the life of the exemption.
Comments are requested
        on what conditions, if any, may be appropriate to impose if an exemption
        in this matter was granted under the SDA.
      Last
      updated 11 November 2002.