Bills Digest No. 110 2003–04
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession) Bill
2004
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage
History
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession) Bill
2004
Date Introduced: 10 March
2004
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio:
Attorney-General
Commencement: On Royal
Assent
To amend the Sex Discrimination Act
(1984) (the Act, SDA or the Sex Discrimination Act) to provide
a permanent exemption for the provision of gender specific
scholarships which can be offered to students in a teaching course.
These scholarships must be designed to address gender imbalance in
teaching.
The Bill now before the House is largely in
response to a decision by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission (HREOC or the Commission), which refused to grant an
exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act to the Catholic Education
Office of the Archdiocese of Sydney (the Sydney CEO) (the first
HREOC decision).(1)
This Digest examines the first HREOC decision
in detail and then looks at the timing and political context of the
developments since then. It considers the anti-discrimination
jurisprudence around affirmative action and special measures, as
well as the statistical and social situation of male teachers in
the schooling system. It looks at different solutions to the
perceived problem that have been suggested by different
parties.
The Digest also examines a subsequent decision
of HREOC to grant an exemption to the Sydney CEO for 12 teaching
scholarships for men and women respectively (the second HREOC
decision). It also examines the differences between the proposed
Bill and the outcome of the second HREOC decision.
In February 2003 the then President of the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Professor Alice Tay,
gave notice to the Sydney CEO that their application for an
exemption from certain provisions of the SDA had been refused. The
Sydney CEO had applied for an exemption from the SDA so they could
offer male-only scholarships to student teachers for a period of
five years. The students were to be students of primary school
education. While the application was for a five year exemption, the
Sydney CEO said the provision of male-only scholarships might form
part of a longer term strategy to encourage males into primary
teaching. They commented that the impact of the scheme may not be
immediate, but were hoping there would be a flow-on effect once the
scholarships were advertised in the first year.(2)
The Commission conducted an inquiry into the
CEO s application and received 11 submissions (5 supporting the
exemption(3) and 6 opposing it(4)). In making
its decision the Commission also drew on the report by the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and
Workplace Relations Boys: Getting it Right (Boys:
Getting it Right report)(5) and on material
supplied by the Sydney CEO and on various statistical sources.
The Commission made four findings of fact:
- there are more women than men primary school teachers in
Australia
- the reasons for the gender imbalance are varied, but
include
- the status of
teachers in the community
- child
protection issues
- the pay and
conditions of primary school teachers relative to other
occupations
there was insufficient evidence that the proposed scholarships
would address the problem, and
there was insufficient evidence that the gender imbalance was
adversely affecting children.
The legal reasoning relied on when refusing
the application for an exemption included the findings set out
below. It should be kept in mind that the Commission was not
required to determine definitively whether the proposed scheme is
covered by the SDA, whether it could be the subject of a permanent
exemption under the SDA and whether it falls within the SDA s
definition of a special measure, but only to resolve these issues
to its own satisfaction before deciding whether to grant an
exemption.
The supply of the proposed scholarships would,
arguably, be a breach of the SDA, in particular subsection 22(1),
which makes it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sex in the
provision of goods and services (services include the provision of
grants ). Subsection 21(2) may also be violated by the proposed
scheme, since it deals with educational authorities and specifies
they should not discriminate on the grounds of sex.
There are already, within the SDA, some
pre-existing permanent exemptions. Two of these (sections 37 and
38), give broad exemptions to religious bodies and the educational
institutions that they establish. Nevertheless these exemptions do
not, arguably, cover the proposed scholarships. Section 37 covers
questions of ordination and the conduct of religious observances
and practices and, along with section 38 (educational institutions
established for religious purposes), cover practices which are
necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of
adherents of [the] religion or creed. HREOC s finding, i.e. that
the permanent exemptions do not cover the scholarships, depends, in
part, on the difficulty of arguing that the offering of the
proposed scholarships would be necessary to avoid injury to the
religious susceptibilities of Catholics. HREOC s conclusion also
hangs on the limited nature of one of the exemptions offered to
educational institutions (the relevant subsection(6)
does not exempt sex discrimination, it only exempts marital status
and pregnancy discrimination).
In recognition of the fact that it may be
appropriate to allow discrimination when the purpose behind it is
to foster equality and counteract the historical effects of
previous discrimination, the SDA includes a permanent exemption for
measures which are taken to redress such situations. These special
measures allow discrimination when it is designed to achieve
substantive equality discrimination which would otherwise violate
the non-discriminatory principles of the SDA. The Commission took a
broad reading of the provision, drawing on a principle from an
earlier case that says a body seeking to rely on this exemption
need not establish in full the likely success or suitability of
their program, so long as they have a genuine belief in the
efficacy of their special measure and that their belief is
reasonable.(7) Nevertheless the Commission found that
the scholarship plan was not designed to redress specific practices
said to exclude, disadvantage, restrict or result in an adverse
effect upon male primary teachers, nor would the absence of the
scheme leave uncorrected the effects of past discrimination against
[men]. (8) Rather the plan was designed to redress the
gender imbalance in the teaching profession, which the Commission
found had arisen for other reasons.
In essence, the Commission found that the
decision taken by males not to become teachers is a choice that
they make for reasons other than discrimination between male and
female teachers. Indeed the Commission pointed to the statistical
preponderance of males in leadership positions within the
profession to indicate that any male/female discrimination in the
profession is not functioning in a manner that is contrary to the
male teacher s interests. The Commission concluded that the reasons
for the statistical lack of male teachers have to do with choices
that are made not due to discrimination against men but for reasons
such as those outlined in the Commission s initial findings of fact
(i.e. choices men make not to enter the teaching profession due to,
for instance, the lack of adequate remuneration for teachers, or
the problems with child protection issues or societal attitudes
towards teachers).
The Commission went on to consider whether it
could be said in the alternative that the special measures are
designed to redress discrimination experienced by boy students as
opposed to girl students, due to the lack of male teachers. It
concluded that while there is evidence that boy students are not
doing as well as girl students in various fields, there is
insufficient evidence to show that this problem is due to the lack
of male teachers (see further Masculinity in primary schools below,
p. 10).
Finally the Commission is required to consider
whether the proposed scholarships would be appropriate in light of
the objects and scheme of the SDA. The Commission points out that
the SDA is not concerned to ensure equal numbers of the sexes in
any particular profession. While the imbalance of male/female
teachers may be of concern to various parties, it has not been
shown to be the result of discrimination (unlike, for instance, the
situation in Western Australia, where a temporary exemption was
given to redress the historical discrimination that women had faced
in gaining senior positions within the WA Department of Education.
While it was predominantly this past discrimination which supported
the exemption it was taken into account that the exemption would
benefit students). The Commission points out again that the reasons
men do not enter the teaching profession have not been shown to
include difficulty with funding or entering their teacher training.
Consequently the Commission concludes that the scholarships do not
address the reasons (as outlined above) why men make the choices
they make regarding teaching.
The Commission draws on the Boys: Getting
it Right report, which recommended that equal numbers of male
and female scholarships be granted (a recommendation rejected by
the government, see more at p. 17) to argue that less
discriminatory schemes are possible. The Commission suggests that
such a scheme could nevertheless serve to encourage men into the
teaching profession and should be considered by the Sydney CEO
rather than allowing it the exemption applied for. Such a scheme
still involves discrimination on the basis of sex (in that gender
determined positions would be prioritised over merit-based
selection), but its discriminatory impact would be more diffuse.
(See below Further developments the second HREOC decision , p.
18)
Having come to this conclusion the Commission
goes on to explore the issue of how their decision may impact on
boy and girl students. They explore one submission that suggests
boys benefit from having male teachers but also note that the
conclusion in the Boys: Getting it Right report is that
the quality of the teacher is more important than the gender of the
teacher. (9) The submissions made to the Commission also
argued that the assumption of a relationship between teacher gender
and student outcomes is unverified (10) and it concluded
there was insufficient evidence before it to support a finding that
the gender imbalance in the primary teaching profession will have
adverse social or educational effects or will detrimentally affect
school culture or the education of boys enrolled as students in
primary schools.(11)
The Government has moved quickly to draft and
introduce this legislation. The Bill to reverse the effects of the
decision by HREOC was introduced into the House on 10 March 2004
and was debated in the House in the week beginning 22 March 2004.
This legislative timetable gives a higher priority to this Bill
than other Bills seeking to amend the SDA. As an illustration of
comparable timeframes: the last amendments made to the SDA were in
response to a report by HREOC.(12) The HREOC Report was
delivered in June 1999,(13) with the Government Response
being delivered in November 2000, some 17 months later. The Bill
was introduced in February 2002 and was assented to in October
2003. In this instance the legislative response took more than 4
years to come to fruition.
According to press reports, at the time the
Bill was introduced the Sydney CEO was just preparing [its] appeal
(to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against HREOC s decision).
(14) According to the same reports the director of
schools for the Sydney Archdiocese, Brother Kelvin Canavan, said We
hadn t asked Canberra to do anything: I was taken quite by surprise
by their announcement. (15) Brother Canavan was also
reported as being unsure whether the appeal would go ahead in light
of the government s announcement.(16) A HREOC press
release dealing with the Bill commented that it was hasty and also
raised the question of the proceedings before the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal, simply saying:
The Bill raises issues which are currently the subject of
proceedings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the
matter of Catholic Education Office v Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission. These proceedings seek to review the
Commission s decision to decline to grant a temporary exemption to
the Catholic Education Office to offer scholarships earmarked for
male student teachers under s 44 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984
(Cth). It is not appropriate for the Commission to comment on those
proceedings.(17)
The introduction of the Bill and the
announcement by the Opposition, Democrats and others that they
would oppose the Bill has been the trigger for some acrimonious
commentary.
From those in favour of the Bill has come
comments largely focussed on the ideological nature of opposition
to the Bill. For instance, the Minister for Education, Science and
Training, Dr Nelson, is quoted as saying [o]pposition to the
legislation is political correctness (18) and [i]t will
do this country no good if we spend the next decade hand-wringing
and clinging to misplaced and well-guided ideological purity if we
produce a generation of young men who are disengaged...
.(19) The Prime Minister said this ideological focus
shows that [t]hose who have a zealous commitment to the Sex
Discrimination Act have more power in the Labor Party than those
concerned about male role models for boys. (20)
Dr Nelson is quoted as saying most of us have
had an absolute gutful of people that are trying to frustrate the
application of common sense, (21) while Mr Howard has
commented the Labor Party s position was the triumph of narrow
ideology over commonsense. (22)
From those opposed to the Bill has come the
proposition that the government s approach is a quick fix that will
not work, (23) and the accusation that the scholarships
are part of a chauvinistic agenda. (24) Mr Latham
observed that [i]n public policy you never want to have to use a
sledgehammer to crack a nut... . Furthermore, said Mr Latham, the
scholarship proposal was just a drop in the ocean, you need
thousands of extra men in our schools to make a real difference on
this crisis of masculinity. (25)
A Queensland Union concluded that the
scholarships were an exercise in superficiality and pure tokenism
and also that the legislation was a simplistic and shallow move.
(26) The Australian Education Union is reported as
saying, similarly, that the proposed changes were simplistic and
short-sighted. (27)
Mr Latham appears to have had an on-going
interest in what has been referred to as the crisis in masculinity.
Before he became Leader of the Opposition he sought to highlight
the lack of male role models and mentoring, (28)
identifying the loss of male teachers in our primary schools as
being of particular concern. Upon becoming the Leader of the
Opposition his concerns in this area continued to feature
prominently, forming part of his initial speech to the National
Press Club(29) and in early media
interviews.(30)
While discussing this Bill several senior
members of the government have commented on Mr Latham s position.
Mr Howard has made comments both in the House:
The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition, having run
around the country and expressed his concern about male role
models, being presented with an opportunity to do something
practical, has run away from that;(31) It is one thing
to talk the talk. It is one thing to run around the country for
three months and profess your concern for the fatherless boys of
Australia. But it is another thing, when you have got an
opportunity to put your hand up and do something for them, to not
do so... On this occasion, the Leader of the Opposition has failed
his own rhetoric. For three months he has regaled the Australian
nation with his concern about the need for male role models but,
when he gets an opportunity to actually do something, he fails the
test. He comes at the bottom of the class.(32)
and in the media:
Their leader has talked endlessly about helping boys This is the
first opportunity he s had as leader of the Labor Party to put his
hand up for something that will help address the crisis in the
shortage of supply of male teachers in our schools This is a
triumph of ideological obsession with not changing a word of the
Sex Discrimination Act, over common sense. [Mr Latham] talked the
talk. But when it comes to doing something, he won t support us.
The Labor Party places a greater priority on not changing a single
comma in the Sex Discrimination Act than it does in helping boys
who need a male role model.(33)
Other senior figures have added their
reflections. Mr Anderson, the Deputy Prime Minister commented that
Mr Latham has gone from Mark the Mentor and Mark the Lionheart to
Mark the Mouse, (34) and Dr Brendan Nelson, the Minister
for Education, Science and Training, has said Mark Latham, who has
been speaking about the so-called crisis of masculinity, is now not
prepared to undertake what is a perfectly reasonable measure to try
and get more men in front of our sons and daughters in primary
school. (35)
The ALP s response to these attacks are
summarised in Jenny Macklin s comments:
It is terrific that Mark has really elevated this issue and I
just say to John Howard, I know you re trying to catch up with Mark
Latham but if we ve got a serious problem, let s get serious about
addressing it This is an issue that requires a substantial
solution, not just a quick fix by the Prime Minister, who s clearly
rattled by Mark Latham raising this issue. Let s deal with the
issue seriously and make sure that we can improve the education of
boys where it s needed.(36)
Senator Harradine, an Independent Senator, is
reported to have commented about the Bill:
If we can support affirmative action programs to get women into
positions where they are under-represented, why not adopt
affirmative action principles to encourage men into teaching
positions?(37)
This question raises one of the central
questions addressed by HREOC and needing to be addressed when
considering the Bill when is it appropriate to introduce
discriminatory measures which may achieve a desirable social
purpose? One of the points made by the Commission is that special
measures are generally designed to redress the effects of
historical discrimination and/or the generally disadvantaged
position of a particular gender. The Commission found that in this
case men had not experienced discrimination in their choices about
entering or not entering the teaching profession, and were not
directly disadvantaged rather they chose not to enter the
profession because it is insufficiently renumerated or respected,
or because of the societal problems caused by issues raised by
child protection. Consequently, according to the traditional
principles of anti-discrimination law, it would be inappropriate to
offer men a gendered advantage over women.
Both in its decision refusing the application
for an exemption and in its subsequent comments through Ms Pru
Goward, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, HREOC has made it
clear that it believes affirmative action programs are
inappropriate in this context. On the one hand Pru Goward has
called into question the wisdom of affirmative action for either
gender, asserting her belief that the merit principle should be
given primacy,(38) commenting:
it s just that whole issue of fairness and how we reward merit.
Australia has always prided itself on the merit principle, and I m
sticking to it. You wouldn t be surprised if a lot of other people
thought this was not fair to them, to their daughters and to their
interest, and why have we had to do this before we ve explored some
other options?(39)
On the other hand Pru Goward has also sought
to draw attention to the generally less privileged position of
women in Australian society and the consequences that would follow
if the principles embodied in the Bill were to be consistently
applied:
if that is the way forward, then the government should
immediately introduce programs that pay a premium to women who
enter parliament or seek positions as executive board members,
university professors, surgeons, engineers, senior military
officers or judges, where women are still disadvantaged and are
seriously underrepresented. Women and girls need role models
too.(40)
The Commissioner has also pointed out that
given the statistical imbalance which can be seen in the promotion
of male and female teachers into administrative positions (whereby
a proportionately greater number of men than women are promoted) an
effective way to ensure more male classroom teachers would be to
introduce programs designed to encourage women into those senior
administrative positions.(41)
The Democrat s schools spokeswoman, Senator
Lyn Allison, also reflected on these matters when she said it was
unfair to give men advantages in female-dominated careers when the
same was not being done for women in male-dominated
industries.(42)
The question of what constitutes affirmative
action could in part explain the difference in perspective between
Senators Harradine and Allison. On the one hand there are forms of
affirmative action which require the approval of the Commission
under the Act, and on the other there are schemes which could fall
under the special measures provisions which would not need to be
approved by the Commission. The Commission has not granted any
meaningful temporary exemptions since 1993. The exemptions that
have been granted have, in a sense, been uncontroversial and not
the product of schemes designed to offer gender specific financial
assistance. Exemptions have been granted, for instance, to
Departments which need time to develop alternative policies to deal
with the introduction of the prohibition on marital status
discrimination, or to allow for regulations under civil aviation
(for instance preventing women who are in late pregnancy from
flying) or more recently to allow for the institution of a gender
and age specific scheme to cater for female and younger asylum
seekers at Woomera. A table of the exemptions granted is attached
to this Digest.
Schemes which might fall under the special
measures provision in the SDA would not need to be approved by
HREOC so it is more difficult to gather data on whether they are
being pursued. Interestingly Australia s
4th and 5th Reports on the Convention on the
Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women
included data on programs designed to promote women working in
non-traditional areas. While the Report was published in 2003 the
programs referred to finish in 1999. It is unclear whether this
cessation represents an ending of such programs generally or
whether the limitation is simply because the data in the Report is
limited.
The international instrument that underlies
the SDA is the United Nations Convention On The Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Unlike the SDA, the
Convention is not gender neutral in its prohibition against
discrimination, focussing specifically on eliminating
discrimination against women because, as the Committee which has
oversight of the Convention comments, the Convention focuses on
discrimination against women, emphasizing that women have suffered,
and continue to suffer from various forms of discrimination because
they are women. (43) While it might be a fruitless
debate, given the government has ruled out participation in a
complaints mechanism under CEDAW, it would nevertheless be
interesting to examine whether the provision of male-only
scholarships could be said to breach the Convention. While the
language of the proposed amendment is phrased it gender-neutral
language, monitoring the Convention requires that the practical
realities, the context and the effects of legislation should be
examined.
Pru Goward has sought to highlight the fact
that women in Australian society still bear the brunt of
discriminatory behaviours.(44) The government also
recognises that as a general rule it is women who are in a
marginalised position for instance its Report on Women in
Australia points out [w]omen continue to earn substantially
less than men, and, more specifically, the Equal Opportunity for
Women in the Workplace Agency comments:
[W]hile women make up 45 per cent of the Australian workforce,
they still earn only 84 cents for every dollar men earn, and that
while women now account for 50 per cent of management and commerce
graduates, they occupy less than nine per cent of senior management
and board positions in the country s top 200 listed
companies.(45)
Another feature of Australian workplaces is
that Australia has a highly gender segmented workforce.
(46) This has been identified by the government as an
area of concern,(47) and questions have been raised with
respect to this Bill about what precedent will be established for
the treatment of other gendered professions.
The Prime Minister has not generally appeared
to be a strong supporter of affirmative action. He commented during
the debate on the passage of the original SDA that:
In deciding to vote for the third reading of the Bill, I should
say I certainly have major reservations about the concept of
affirmative action legislation and I certainly do not regard
support of this legislation as being indicative of support for
that.(48)
More recently he said:
I do have a comment on the affirmative action. I think that
affirmative action rules are insulting to women. I think quotas are
patronising to women and most women I know who are interested in
politics don t want the patronising existence of quotas. They want
to get there on their own merit.(49)
The fact that there are few male teachers in
primary schools is not in contention. Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS) schools data indicate that in the last ten years
the proportion of male primary school teachers declined from 25.6
per cent in 1993 to 20.9 percent in 2003. This decline has affected
government schools more than non-government schools, with the
proportion of male primary teachers in government schools declining
from 26.7 per cent in 1993 to 21.1 per cent in 2001, a decline of
5.6 per cent. The decline of male primary school teachers in
non-government schools was only 1.7 per cent. Within the
non-government sector there is a significant variation in the
proportion of male primary school teachers, with Catholic schools
having the lowest proportion overall and independent schools the
highest.
This phenomenon is not exclusive to
Australia. In 2001 in all OECD countries for which data was
available, primary school teachers were predominantly female (64
per cent or higher).(50) Australian data was not
included in the OECD analysis. However, using ABS data, 78.7 per
cent of primary school teachers in Australia in 2001 were female,
virtually the same as the 2001 OECD country mean of 78.6 per
cent.
The other issue that is not the subject of
contention is that boys are facing problems within the schooling
system. The Boys: Getting it Right report(51)
identified this as an issue, and more recently the Minister for
Education, Dr Nelson, highlighted the matter:
The situation in Australia at the moment is that boys,
particularly in adolescence, are not doing as well in education,
particularly in basic literacy, as they were 35 years ago. Further,
the problem is not so much that girls are staying on to year 12 and
doing much better than boys in year 12; the problem is much more
that boys are represented more than two to one in the bottom 25 per
cent of performance at school. Boys are falling behind
girls some three to four percentage points in
operational literacy right throughout the assessed cognitive
curriculum from early primary to late secondary school. If you add
to that that boys represent 80 per cent of all schoolchildren in
school disciplinary programs and close to 100 per cent of those
expelled from school, that they are more likely to be involved in
drug related incidents and in assault and that they are three times
more likely to die in a motor vehicle accident and five times more
likely to take their own lives, it is obvious that our country has
a problem.(52)
In HREOC s decision refusing an exemption for
the Sydney CEO, it concluded there was insufficient evidence that
boys were suffering due to the lack of male teachers. An element of
this conclusion involves questioning the extent of the educational
problems faced by boys, pointing out that, at a national level the
gender gap in results in Year 3 Literacy Benchmark tests for 1999
was 4.1 per cent in favour of girls, and in Year 5 it was 5 per
cent in favour of girls. However, the gender gap decreased to 3.4
per cent in 2000 for Year 3 students, and to 4.4 per cent for Year
5 students. These figures came from the Boys: Getting it
Right report, which went on to note that [t]here are also
likely to be social, biological or developmental reasons why boys
levels of attainment are lower than girls .(53) Dr Molly
de Lemos, of the Australian Council of Education Research, is also
reported to have commented that research indicates the real reasons
are far less simple, possibly including slower rates of maturation
among boys and genetically determined differences in temperament.
(54)
While the reasons for the various statistical
demonstrations of an imbalance in the results may be an open
question, there is no dispute that boys are having problems in a
range of areas in schools, including even their capacity to stay at
them. Boys are much more likely to leave school early, particularly
in lower socio economic status areas.(55) Boys also have
a disproportionate representation in juvenile delinquency,
representing 90% of juvenile offenders, are six times more likely
to commit suicide when young and their performance in the
educational area of literacy is poor and declining, with
educational outcomes generally showing a range of
problems.(56)
While there may be a general acceptance that
there are problems being faced by boys in the schooling system, the
unresolved and contentious issue is whether there is a causal link
between the lack of male teachers and these problems . In his
second reading speech for the Bill the Attorney-General, Mr
Ruddock, stated that [s]tudents throughout Australia will benefit
from having both male and female role models in the teaching
profession. (57) Certainly this is a commonly held
belief but the evidence for the assertion may not go further than
commonsense.
Janet Smith, an academic who has studied the
issue of male primary teachers, recently gave her PhD Completion
Seminar at which she pointed out that there has been no substantial
research in Australia illustrating the effects (positive or
negative) of the gender of a teacher on the educational outcomes of
a student.(58) British research has found no discernible
correlation between staff gender balance and the attainment levels
of 9 year olds. The study examined the relation between the
proportions of male and female teachers in primary schools and
pupil achievement at the end of Key Stage 2 (7 to 9 years). The
gender difference they did find was a slightly better maths
performance by male headed schools.(59) Other research
from England, moreover, found that there was no link between the
number of male teachers in a primary school and student
performance.(60) Meanwhile a study of Finnish students
found that students did not consider gender relevant, appreciating
good teachers regardless of gender.(61)
Two reports by the British Office for
Standards in Education identified a number of characteristics
common to schools where the gap between boys and girls attainment
was significantly smaller than the norm or where boys were
improving faster than girls. These characteristics predominantly
related to school teaching styles and school culture. There was no
reference to gender factors. The characteristics included:
- a non-macho culture of learning where pupils benefit from a
strong sense of community;
- pupils feel valued by an ethos that celebrates
achievement;
- teachers provide prompt and detailed feedback in marking pupils
work;
- pupils are set short-term tasks that can be tackled in clear
stages; and
- teaching is enthusiastic with good use of humour.
The Office concluded from these reports that
boys do well where the traditional three R s are complemented by a
fourth R : respect.(62)
These findings reinforce the views of those
who argue that the quality of teaching is the most important factor
contributing to the success of all students, a view endorsed by the
Boys: Getting it Right report.(63) In coming to
this conclusion the Committee may have drawn on the conclusions of
one of the more substantive submissions to the Committee. This
submission found that, having examined the evidence based findings
of key factors affecting boys and girls educational experiences and
outcomes:
the quality of teaching and learning provision are by far the
most salient influences in students cognitive, affective, and
behavioural outcomes of schooling regardless of either student or
teacher gender.(64)
Dr Ken Rose, a research director at the
Australian Council of Education Research puts this more bluntly
when he said The real issue is quality of teaching and it doesn t
make a hoot of difference whether the teacher is male or female.
(65)
While it is difficult to find evidence linking
the presence of male teachers with improved educational attainment
for boys, there is some academic thinking which concludes, chiefly
by referring to the experiences of feminist teachers in the 1970s
and 1980s, that matching students and their teachers by gender (and
ethnicity) can have a positive effect on other aspects of students
school experiences. The suggestion is made that where teachers
share a range of critical experiences with their students they will
be more likely to act to bring about a change in the status quo
.(66)
An Australian academic supporting the call for
more male teachers is Dr Peter West, head of the University of
Western Sydney s research group on men and families. A recent media
article summarises West s position:
He says men and women are different that s why they compete in
separate categories in sporting events and are taught differently.
Most children have many women around, especially a mother, he says.
And women teachers talk mother-ese and emphasise a
please-and-thank-you environment. Male teachers are different. They
have louder voices, are more down to earth and organise more
hands-on activities for children in the classroom. Some people say
a teacher is a teacher is a teacher , regardless of gender. This is
a huge contradiction no-one wants to address says West.The
importance of male teachers is not so much their contribution to
academic outcomes, but in boys overall development. A boy knows he
will become a man, West says, and a male teacher gives him a sense
of the direction in which his life is going.(67)
The central thesis behind the call for more
male teachers is that they are needed to provide male role models.
This need, according to a variety of sources, is made more acute by
the increasing numbers of children growing up in single-parent
families. Dr Nelson is reported as having said:
We have mothers in this country who stand in public meetings in
tears because their sons from fatherless families, through no fault
of their own, have reached their adolescence without ever having
had a male role model in their lives. (68)
In contrast, Janet Smith, the Canberra based
academic referred to above, has raised the question as to why there
aren t more calls for fathers to take greater interest in their
children rather than putting the responsibility on teachers, and
also suggests the focus could be on the responsibility of
single-parents to seek out appropriate role
models.(69)
An article in the British Journal of
Education Policy, recently questioned the validity of role
model theory as a panacea for improving boys school performance.
The article said that the concept is of far less prominence in
current sociological and psychological literature. The article
warned of the perils of gender modelling. Not only may male role
modelling reinforce the very behaviours by boys that
educationalists and policy makers are trying to overcome, but it
may also inadvertently carry with it negative messages about female
teachers and have negative consequences for girls schooling.
Another UK article recently observed:
Concepts of role model and socialization theory are widely
challenged in the literature on gender, but used rather
unproblematically in the common sense comment around teacher
recruitment in the press.(70)
A further difficulty with the current
discussion about the need for male role models is that there are
very few, if any, definitions of what it means to be a role model
or what, in a practical sense, is envisaged for the role of male
primary school teachers. As some UK academics have concluded:
current policies aimed at broadening the composition of the
teaching workforce are apparently uninformed by the findings of
research on role models .(71) Yet other academics
emphasise that boys are not a homogenous group, and that popular
concerns about boys and schooling rarely challenge the dominant
views of masculinities and fail to critique
masculinity.(72) Janet Smith reports that in interviews
for her research into the experiences of male primary school
teachers, some responded that they did not know what it meant to be
a male role model , that they did not know how to go about being a
male role model, and that their priority was to be regarded as a
good teacher.(73)
The Government s solution to the problem of a
paucity of male primary teachers is contained, in part, in the
Bill, which gives freedom to other bodies to offer scholarships on
a discriminatory basis. Dr Nelson points out there are other
programs in place designed to address the matter:
The government has initiated a number of things to address the
educational needs of boys and girls but most recently that of boys
in particular. The government has funded some 230 schools in 110
projects to examine best practice models in relation to the
education of boys. Very shortly, on behalf of the government, I
will be announcing funding, on an ongoing basis, for 30 clusters of
schools right throughout Australia to be working models in relation
to boys education. The government has also taken on the gender
equity framework from the Keating government, and that has evolved.
That governs the education of all children, boys and
girls.(74)
The Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock, also
articulated additional programs designed to address the lack of
male teachers in his second reading speech:
This bill complements the government s other major strategies
for addressing the particular challenge of increasing education
outcomes for boys, including: Boys education is a priority area for
the $159.2 million Australian Government Quality Teacher Programme.
This includes $6 million committed to the Boys Education Lighthouse
Schools Programme to identify best practice in boys education, with
a further $500,000 committed to research.(75)
The Government supports a range of initiatives
for boys in education through the Department of Education, Science
and Training.(76)
Pru Goward has drawn attention to the
alternative solutions to the perceived need to increase the number
of male teachers. She has focussed most particularly on the need to
supply better financial remuneration to teachers, for instance:
There are any number of alternative programs that are not
discriminatory, Ms Goward said The simple fact is that young men
are not attracted to teaching because they can earn better money
elsewhere. As women s work it has never been remunerated
properly.(77)
Dr Peter West, who argues strongly that a
greater number of male teachers are needed in order to benefit boy
students, also comments that: we need more men, but only good men,
in teaching. We will probably have to increase teachers salaries a
great deal to achieve this. (78) The Labor Party, the
unions and a range of academics and commentators, agree with the
need to increase the financial remuneration of teachers. The
Boys: Getting it Right report recommended this
remuneration be increased, but the recommendation was directed at
the States and Territories, with the Commonwealth government
responding to the recommendation by stating that this was wholly a
matter for the States and Territories and for non-government
education authorities and schools.(79)
The Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Pru
Goward, suggests that successful programs which have worked to
allow more women into traditionally male-dominated professions can
be adapted to encourage young men into teaching:
For example, sending young male teacher students to schools to
encourage young men to consider the career or supporting career
counsellors to promote the benefits of a teaching career could be
useful beginnings. One of the problems is that male teachers leave
the profession mid-career because of poor remuneration or they are
promoted out of the classroom to become principals or assistant
principals. Programs to stop this exodus and to encourage the
promotion of a representative number of women teachers into senior
administrative positions in schools would result in more male
teachers in the classroom. There are any number of alternative
programs that are not discriminatory and that do not need a
legislative amendment (80)
In addition, Pru Goward, suggests that:
Instead you market teaching in a different way. You market so
that it is attractive to boys instead of a profession that is not
of interest to them.(81)
Similarly an academic from the Australian
Catholic University, Dr Janelle Young, suggests that:
perhaps we need to get into the high schools a little bit more
and talk to both male and female students about the profession
itself Perhaps offer them a little bit more in workplace
opportunities while they re still in secondary school and perhaps
attract more applications particularly from male students.
(82)
In light of Pru Goward s suggestion that the
experience of initiatives designed to assist women into male
dominated areas of employment be examined this Digest includes as
an attachment data from Australia s 4th and
5th Reports on the Convention on the Elimination of all
forms of Discrimination Against Women. The Report documents
initiatives taken to increase women s entry and retention in
non-traditional areas of employment.
It would also be possible, presumably, to draw
on the experience of other attempts that have already been made to
increase the number of male teachers. The Teaching Training Agency
in England was aiming by 2002-03 to increase to 15 per cent the
proportion of male entrants to primary initial teaching training.
Its strategies included using advertisements to change opinions of
the worth of teaching, encouraging colleges to reach a target
number of men and giving grants to local authorities for schemes
aimed at men.(83)
There are also reports of both general and
male specific programs in Australia to promote greater numbers into
teaching. The Step Up Into Teaching program, run by the Parramatta
Catholic Education Office and the Australian Catholic University,
is offered to selected male and female Year 11 and 12 students. The
Program s object is to encourage them into teaching by allowing the
commencement of university studies in teacher education while still
at school.(84)
The Labor Party s perspective on solutions to
the problem include a need to pursue the recommendations in the
Boys: Getting it Right report and refers to Labor s five
point plan to get more men into primary schools:
- a National campaign for attracting quality entrants to
teaching, targeting men with relevant skills and backgrounds
- encouraging more male mentors to work with schools and parents
- including involving fathers - in reading to students, using
technology, vocational education, music and drama, and sporting
activities
- incentives for quality teaching, including for teachers who
have the skills needed to improve the learning outcomes of
boys
- targeting improvements in teaching skills for boys in the
Commonwealth s Professional Development program and in the
development of National Teaching Standards and
- student discipline and welfare programs - much of which will be
targeted at boys.(85)
In its response to the Boys: Getting it
Right report the government accepted the bulk of its
recommendations. More than half of the recommendations were
accepted outright, and several of the others were given conditional
support. Most of those not taken up by the government fell into
state and territory areas of responsibility, or were the
responsibility of another agency or of the school system s
management. One of the few rejected recommendations was
recommendation 20, which was to the effect that the Australian
Government should fund equal numbers of scholarships for male and
female students. The recommendation was rejected by the government
on the grounds that:
other means of achieving the objective of this recommendation
should be explored.The objective of the report s recommendation is
based on the reasoning that more male teachers are needed because
of the importance of providing good role models to boys. Boys:
Getting it right also argued that women and men can be equally
good teachers of both boys and girls, and that the quality of a
teacher is more important than his or her gender.The Government is
sympathetic to this line of reasoning. However, it rejects the
proposed HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme) free
scholarship mechanism, because:
- it is likely to have little impact on the gender balance among
teachers in schools, because such scholarships would inevitably be
limited in number and many would probably go to students (whether
male or female) already committed to teaching;
- the evidence suggests that HECS is not a major determinant in
student choices; and
- such scholarships would set an undesirable precedent, as the
same principle could be applied to many University courses which
have unequal gender representation.(86)
The Bill does not propose that the government
offer scholarships itself. Indeed it could be said the strength of
the Bill is that it doesn t mandate any particular behaviour by any
body, it just facilitates the situation where those who want to can
fund the training of male teachers.
The Bill s effect is quite straightforward it
inserts a proposed section (38A) into the SDA s
Part II (Prohibition of discrimination), Division 4 (Exemptions).
The proposed section provides that it is not
discriminatory to offer scholarships to students in a teaching
course if the scholarships are offered in order to redress a gender
imbalance in teaching. Gender imbalance in teaching is defined to
mean an imbalance in the ratio of male to female teachers in
schools (schools are defined to include childcare and both primary
and secondary schools, and the gender imbalance is defined so as to
include region or sector specific initiatives )(87).
With a speed rivalling the projected progress
of the Bill, HREOC announced on 19 Friday March 2004 (less than two
weeks after the Bill was introduced) that they had given a
temporary exemption to the Sydney CEO in response to a new
application. The new application proposed a modified version of the
original application. Rather than a scholarship scheme involving
male only scholarships the application sought (and was granted) an
exemption for a proposal to provide equal numbers of scholarships
to men and women (it specified there would be 12 for each gender).
This took up the suggestion by HREOC in its first decision that the
Sydney CEO examine ways of offering scholarships on a less
discriminatory basis. (88) In that decision the
Commission also endorsed the recommendation of the Boys:
Getting it Right report that there should be funding for an
equal number of scholarships for male and female
students.(89)
In granting the exemption the Commission
commented that it still regarded the need to explore alternative
mechanisms to promote male participation in teaching as important,
and reiterated its query as to whether the gender of a teacher is
vital to good outcomes for students, asserting that the most
important consideration is likely to be the quality of the teacher
rather than their gender.(90) Nevertheless, and given
the new scholarships did not negatively impact on the existing
scholarship arrangements offered by the Sydney CEO (and their
Trustees), and given also that the Sydney CEO would continue to
investigate alternative options to promote male participation, the
Commission decided that the scheme was
reasonable.(91)
With the grant of its temporary exemption the
Sydney CEO has achieved for itself the results that would have
followed from the passage of the Bill (albeit having had to
introduce a matching set of female scholarships to achieve the
exemption). It was also saved the effort of going to the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal, having discontinued its
application for review upon the granting of the exemption.
While the Sydney CEO may no longer acquire a
direct benefit from the amendments in the Bill the question remains
as to the fate of the Bill. The differences between the results
offered by the temporary exemption process and the results of the
permanent exemption are highlighted by the decision of the
Commission.
In summary the Bill proposes an exemption
which is, in contrast to the current form of HREOC approved
exemptions,
- universal
- effectively unconditional, and
- permanent.
Other educational institutions will not be
covered by the temporary exemption extended to the Sydney CEO. Pru
Goward comments that the Commission is required to consider
applications on a case by case basis and generally does not grant
temporary exemptions unless they are appropriate in light of the
objects and scheme of the Sex Discrimination Act.
(92)
Dr Nelson is concerned by the issue of costs
under such a scheme:
The Catholic Education Commission by virtue of its size can
afford to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and spend
thousands of dollars on lawyers [whereas] if you are running a
small Aboriginal community college, a Montessori school, an
Anglican or a Christian school, you don t have the money or the
time to do these things.(93)
He went on to suggest that the government
needs to create a situation where any school provider can, without
fear of crippling ideology, offer male-only scholarships to attract
men to apply for teaching and then get in purely on the basis of
merit (94)
It is difficult to ascertain what costs might
be involved in an application for an exemption. Presumably if it is
a non controversial application it could be neither expensive nor
time consuming. For instance if an institution were to make an
application for an exemption similar to the one granted to the
Sydney CEO it could expect to have few difficulties.
Requiring an institution wishing to offer
discriminatory scholarships to approach HREOC for an exemption
certainly creates administrative, and possibly financial barriers
as well, while the permanent exemption would remove these.
In granting a temporary exemption HREOC is
able to determine conditions upon which an exemption is granted.
So, for instance, the exemption granted to the Sydney CEO specified
there must be no derogation from their pre-existing scholarship
arrangements and also that the Sydney CEO would investigate and
implement further non-discriminatory strategies that address the
underlying causes of the gender imbalance in the primary teaching
profession. (95) The exemption provided by the Bill
would impose no conditions other than the base level qualifying
condition, i.e. that there is a gender imbalance in the teacher
numbers (either at the particular school or on an Australian wide
basis).
Because it holds the power to refuse or grant
an exemption the Commission is able to set base level conditions,
so, for instance, the proposal to have an equal number of gender
specific scholarships set the conditions on the grant of the
exemption to the Sydney CEO. Dr Nelson is reported as having said
that the Commission s decision was absurd, questioning how offering
more scholarships to women will attract more men into teaching. Dr
Nelson also said the decision will not solve the problem of a lack
of male teachers and the Government will press ahead with changes
to the Sex Discrimination Act.(96) Pru Goward commented
with respect to the conditions imposed that when considering an
application, the Commission will have regard to the reasonableness
of the exemption sought and the principle of the equality of men
and women:
The Commission's work is always evidence based. Our only
starting point is a very clear focus on the equality of men and
women. As this decision shows, we are flexible as to how that can
be achieved.(97)
The Commission can limit its exemptions to
whatever duration seems appropriate to it. For instance, the
exemption given to the Sydney CEO was limited to five years.
The Bill proposes amendments which would
impose no time limit on the exemption, however the condition that
the exemption only applies in circumstances where there is a gender
imbalance in teacher numbers would mean that there is at least a
theoretical ending point.
An interesting question raised by the Bill is
whether the new provisions could extend to cover scholarships which
might be offered to women to assist them to achieve appointments as
Principals or Deputy Principals. Such measures have been suggested
as one means to redress the gender imbalances in the teaching
profession.(98) The proposed amendments apply
specifically to study that leads to a qualification for teaching
students. While it is unclear whether the courses that might assist
female promotion would qualify under this definition it would be
interesting to see if such measures would be exempted.
As outlined above, in contrast to the
mechanism in the SDA which allows for the grant of a temporary
exemption after its review for suitability by the Commission, the
Bill proposes a permanent exemption which applies to anyone, at any
time. The mechanism for reviewing its suitability or its consonance
with the aims of the SDA would be through the courts rather than
HREOC. The proposed exemption applies to both primary and secondary
schools.(99)
There is an implicit assumption in the
discussions of the Bill that it will be utilised as a means of
achieving gender equity, however this may not be the motivation of
every educational institution. For example it would not be beyond
the realms of possibility that a fundamentalist religious schools
may take the opportunity to offer male-only scholarships, presuming
there continues to be an Australia-wide shortage of male teachers.
This would be an extension of the current exemption arrangements
for religious schools.(100)
A more cautious legislative approach might
regard it as appropriate to have a mechanism for review of the
scholarship schemes, and possibly a sunset clause. The government
might argue that the provision which stipulates that discriminatory
practices are only suitable if there is a gender imbalance would
ensure the practice is not pursued in perpetuity. However it is
unclear whether the definition of gender imbalance means that it
would only be a 50% balance that ends the effect of the exemption.
It could be argued that a cessation of discriminatory scholarships
might be desirable at some point before a 50/50 gender balance is
achieved. Furthermore, the Bill stipulates that the gender ratio
can be considered from a perspective as broad as across Australia
generally (proposed subsection 38A(2)(a)), to a perspective as
local as an individual school (proposed subsection 38A(2)(c)),
without explicitly tying the appropriate gender imbalance to the
provision of the scholarships. This may leave open the possibility
of anomalous results.
-
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sex
Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), Section 44(1), Notice of Rejection
of Application for Exemption ,
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sex_discrimination/exemption/decision.html.
For instance, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, commented in the House
that it was the Commission s decision that brought about the
decision of the government to seek a commonsense amendment to the
act (House of Representatives, Debates, Thursday 11 March
2004, p. 25785) and said on ABC Radio that the decision underlined
a flaw in the legislation ( Sex Discrim Act flawed if it stops
church employing men: PM, AAP, 1 Feb 2004).
-
The application letter from the Sydney CEO is available from
HREOC at
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sex_discrimination/exemption/letter1.html
-
Submissions came from five private individuals.
-
Submissions came from the Victorian Institute of Teaching and
the Independent Education Union of Australia, as well as four
private individuals.
-
Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2002.
-
Subsection 38(3).
-
Proudfoot & Others v ACT Board of Health and Others
(1992) EOC 92 417.
-
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sex
Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), Section 44(1), Notice of Rejection
of Application for Exemption ,
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sex_discrimination/exemption/decision.html.
-
Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace
Relations, Boys: Getting it Right, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra, 2002, p162. Quoted in the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission, Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth),
Section 44(1), Notice of Rejection of Application for Exemption ,
para 3.39,
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sex_discrimination/exemption/decision.html
-
ibid., para 3.40.
-
ibid., para 3.41.
-
The Bill was the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Pregnancy and
Work) Bill 2002, which became the Sex Discrimination Amendment
(Pregnancy and Work) Act 2003 No. 103 of 2003.
-
Pregnant and Productive: It s a right not a privilege to
work while pregnant, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission, Sydney, 1999.
-
Sex laws to be changed to encourage more male teachers , Maria
Hawthorne and Linda McSweeny, AAP, 9 March 2004.
-
ibid.
-
Sex laws to be changed to encourage more male teachers , Maria
Hawthorne and Linda McSweeny, AAP, 9 March 2004.
-
Statement on Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession)
Bill 2004, HREOC Media Release, 9 March 2004,
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/media_releases/2004/12_04.html
-
Dr Brendan Nelson, Education Minister, quoted in Latham
unreasonable on male teacher scholarships govt AAP, 10 March
2004.
-
Dr Brendan Nelson, Education Minister, quoted in Latham
unreasonable on male teacher scholarships govt AAP, 10 March
2004
-
The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, House of
Representatives, Debates, 11 March 2004, p. 25785.
-
Latham unreasonable on male teacher scholarships govt AAP, 10
March 2004.
-
The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, House of
Representatives, Debates, 10 March 2004, p. 25650. The
word commonsense has been a recurrent theme in the government s
discussions of the Bill. Mr Howard has called the Bill a
commonsense amendment to the act. (House of Representatives,
Debates, 11 March, p. 25785), and, when answering a question
without notice regarding the Bill, he used the word commonsense
throughout his response with his closing paragraph using the word
five times over.
-
The comments are attributed to Labor, the Greens and the
Australian Democrats in Unions warn against male-teacher plan:
Education Daylead AAP, Thursday 11 March 2004.
-
Democrats Senator John Cherry, quoted in Male leadership crisis
in schools downplays women Cherry AAP, 10 March 2004.
-
Govt using sledgehammer to change sex discrimination act , AAP
11 March 2004.
-
Scholarship plans superficial, says Union, AAP, 10 March
2004.
-
Govt misses the point on male teachers, union , AAP, 10 March
2004.
-
For example, Children need a message of hope, Mark Latham,
The Daily Telegraph, Monday 6 August 2001; See also Dad
needs to be heard , Herald Sun, 30 August 2002.
-
Work, family and community: a modern Australian agenda,
National Press Club, 18 February 2004.
-
Opposition Leader elaborates on his policies for schools, health
care, refugees, tax cuts and mentoring of young boys, 7.30
Report, 29 January 2004.
-
Mr Howard, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 March
2004, p. 25785.
-
Mr Howard, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 March
2004, p. 25785.
-
Mr Howard, quoted in Sex law changes could be defeated in
Senate, AAP, 10 March 2004.
-
House of Representatives, Debates, p. 25651.
-
Canberra acts to encourage male teachers , Marcus Pries,
Australian Financial Review, quoting Dr Brendan Nelson,
Education Minister, 10 March 2004.
-
Jenny Macklin MP, Transcript of Doorstop Canberra 10 March 2004;
also quoted in Sex law changes could be defeated in Senate, AAP, 10
March 2004
-
Unions warn against male-teacher plan , AAP, 11 March 2004.
-
Pru Goward has pointed out that no temporary exemptions have
been given for female only scholarships since 1993, and has said
that she has never granted such an exemption, believing that merit
and fair go and equal opportunity is the best way to do it.
-
Pru Goward, on AM, 11 March 2004.
-
Statement on Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession)
Bill 2004, 9 March 2004:
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/media_releases/2004/12_04.htm
-
ibid.
-
Quoted in Sex Law changes could be defeated in Senate, AAP, 10
March 2004.
-
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women,
General recommendation No. 25, on article 4, paragraph 1, of
the Convention on The Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women, on temporary special measures, 30 January 2004,
CEDAW/C/2004/I/WP.1/Rev.1.
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw30/GenRecWP1-auv.PDF
-
Ms Goward said Australian women have a long way to go before we
achieve true equality with men. Quoted in Libs scolded on mothers
plight , Emma-Kate Symons, The Australian, 9 March ,
2004.
-
Chief Executives Unplugged: Business Leaders Get Real About
Women in the Workplace, by Josephine Brouard, Lisa Annese, Fiona
Krautil, Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency, 2004,
p. 7.
-
Office of the Status of Women, Women in Australia 2001,
2002 p. 132.
-
Australia s 4th and 5th Reports on the
Convention on The Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,
Office of the Status of Women, 2003, p. 8.
-
House of Representatives, Debates, 7 March 1984, 671
(Third Reading, Sex Discrimination Bill 1983).
-
Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon John Howard MP Press
Conference, Dunmore Lang College, Sydney, 6 October 2002.
Commenting on the changes to the ALP s affirmative action
pre-selection rules.
-
See Table D8.2, Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators,
2003, p. 409. Data not available for Greece, Switzerland and
Turkey.
-
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment,
Education and Workplace Relations, Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra, 2002.
-
House of Representatives, Debates, 9 March 2004, p.
25539.
-
HREOC, in Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sex
Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), Section 44(1), Notice of Rejection
of Application for Exemption ,
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sex_discrimination/exemption/decision.html
quoting the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Employment, Education and Workplace Relations Boys: Getting it
Right, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2002, p. 8.
-
Quoted in Men s primary problem, by Catherine Armitage in
The Australian, Monday 15 March 1999, p. 20.
-
Richard Teese and John Polesel, Undemocratic Schooling,
2003.
-
Boy Troubles: Understanding Rising Suicide, Rising Crime and
Educational Failure, Jennifer Buckingham, Centre for
Independent Studies, 2000:
http://www.cis.org.au/Publications/summaries/PM46summ.html
-
House of Representatives, Debates, 10 March 2004, p.
25607.
-
The PhD research will be entitled Male Primary Teachers: The
Experience of Crossing-Over Into Pink-Collar Work. See also We
Need More Males in Primary Teacher Education! Or do we?, Janet
Smith, paper presented to the Australian Association for Research
in Education Conference Melbourne, November 1999.
http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/smi99558.htm.
-
Bricheno, Pat and Thornton, Mary, Staff gender balance in
primary schools , Research in Education, Iss. 68, pp. 57+
[7p.]
-
Lesley Froude, Study Defies the Boys Need Men Credo , Times
Educational Supplement, 8 March 2002, p. 3.
-
Lahelma, Elina, 'Lack of male teachers: a problem for students
or teachers?', Pedagogy, Culture and Society, vol. 8, no. 2, 2000,
pp. 173 186.
http://www.triangle.co.uk/cus/content/pdfs/8/issue8_2.asp
-
Great Britain. Office for Standards in Education, 'Ofsted finds
extra 'r' helps boys perform well at school', Press Release, NR
2003-89, 11 July 2003:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.details&id=1468
-
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and
Training, Boys: Getting it Right, 2002, p. 162.
-
Rowe, Kenneth J. and Rowe, Katherine S., What matters most:
evidence-based findings of key factors affecting the educational
experiences and outcomes for girls and boys throughout their
primary and secondary schooling , Supplementary Submission to
the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and
Training: Inquiry into the Education of Boys, 2002,
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/edt/eofb/subs/subs111_1.pdf
.
-
Quoted in Lessons in cheques and balances , Tess Lingstone,
Courier Mail, Saturday 13 March 2004, p. 33.
-
Carrington, Bruce and Skelton, Christine, Re-thinking role
models : equal opportunities in teacher recruitment in England and
Wales , Journal of Education Policy, vol. 18, no. 3, 253
265,
http://parlinfoweb.parl.net/parlinfo/Repository1/Library/Jrnart/OP7A60.pdf
.
-
Mixed vision in male-teacher focus, Daniel Landon, Canberra
Times, Saturday 13 March 2004, Saturday Forum, p. 5. See also, for
instance, It Ain t Cool To Like School : Why Are Boys
Underachieving Around The World? And What Can We Do About It?,
Peter West
http://www.menshealth.uws.edu.au/documents/It%20Aint%20cool%20to%20Like%20School.pdf
-
Men outnumbered in classes around the country, Maria Hawthorne,
AAP, 12 March 2004.
-
Janet Smith, We need more males in primary teacher education! Or
do we?, Paper Presented to the Australian Association for Research
in Education Conference, Melbourne, November 1999; Mixed vision in
male-teacher focus, Daniel Landon, Canberra Times, 13 March 2004,
Saturday Forum, p. 5.
-
Do boys need male primary teachers as positive role models?
Elizabeth Burn, Forum (for Promoting 3-19 Comprehensive
Education), vol. 44, no. 1, 2002, pp. 34 40.
-
Carrington, Bruce and Skelton, Christine, Re-thinking role
models : equal opportunities in teacher recruitment in England and
Wales , Journal of Education Policy, vol. 18, no. 3, 253
265,
http://parlinfoweb.parl.net/parlinfo/Repository1/Library/Jrnart/OP7A60.pdf
.
-
A Tangle of Trouble: boys, masculinity and schooling - future
directions Educational review: (Birmingham), Frank Blye ,
Michael Kehler, Trudy Lovell and Kevin Davison, vol. 55, no 2,
2003, pp. 119 133.
-
PhD Completion Seminar, University of Canberra, 2004.
-
House of Representatives, Debates, 9 March 2004, p.
25539.
-
House of Representatives, Debates, 10 March 2004, p.
25607.
-
See generally
http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/boyseducation/initiatives.htm
-
Parliament to vote on men-only scholarships, Orietta Guerrera,
The Age,11 March , 2004 http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/10/1078594428865.html
-
It Ain t Cool To Like School : Why Are Boys Underachieving
Around The World? And What Can We Do About It?, Peter West
http://www.menshealth.uws.edu.au/documents/It%20Aint%20cool%20to%20Like%20School.pdf
-
Report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Education and Training: Boys: Getting it right: The Government
Response to the Report, p. 22.
-
Better Pay would lure more men into schools, Pru Goward, The
Australian, 11 March 2004.
-
Interview with Peta Donald on AM, 11 March 2004.
-
Academic urges cation in male teacher drive, ABC News,
12 March 2004.
-
Not just women s work , Sanjida O Connell, The Times, 3
August 2000.
-
Parramatta Catholic Education Office, Annual
Review, 2000.
-
Jenny Macklin, Labor's five point plan to get more men into
primary schools, Media Releases & Published Articles,
9 March 2004:
http://www.jennymacklin.net/infocentre.asp?data=480D020101054F5851515E587E45555F48454B4E
-
Report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Education and Training: Boys: Getting it right: The Government
Response to the Report, p. 23.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching
Profession) Bill 2004, p. 2.
-
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sex
Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), Section 44(1), Notice of Rejection
of Application for Exemption , para 3.34.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sex_discrimination/exemption/decision.html
-
ibid.
-
Notice of Grant of Temporary Exemption, 19 March, 2004, para.
2.8 ff. The Commission relied in part on a Statement of Dr Martin
Mills dated 9 March 2004.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/legal/sda_exemption/ceo_exemption.html
-
ibid., para 2.3. It should be noted that, prior to making this
finding it had also concluded that the scheme could form the basis
of a valid complaint under the SDA s provisions.
-
Commission grants temporary exemption to CEO after new
application offers equal number of male and female scholarships ,
HREOC Electronic Mailing List Service, 19 March 2004.
-
Transcript of interview with Brendan Nelson, Minister for
Education, Science and Training on Insiders, Sunday 14
March 2004.
-
ibid., Dr Nelson s reconciliation of gender specific
scholarships with the principle of merit selection seems unusual
they are usually offered in the alternative because a gender
limited scholarship would preclude the operation of what is
conventionally regarded as merit selection.
-
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sex
Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), Section 44(1), Notice of Grant of a
Temporary Exemption, 19 March 2004, para 4.2.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/legal/sda_exemption/ceo_exemption.html
-
'Catholic schools will now offer male and female teaching
scholarships.' ABC, 19 March 2004.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1069836.htm
-
Commission grants temporary exemption to CEO after new
application offers equal number of male and female scholarships ,
HREOC Media Release, 19 March 2004.
-
For instance this suggestion was made by Pru Goward, Statement
on Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession) Bill 2004, 9
March 2004,
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/media_releases/2004/12_04.htm
-
The lack of male teachers is more pronounced in the primary
sector. The focus of the Sydney CEO s application was clearly on
primary teaching. It would presumably have been possible to confine
the proposed exemption to scholarships at a primary school
level.
100. The current exemption is in
subsection 38(1) of the SDA.
Attachments
From Women in Australia: Australia s
Combined Fourth and Fifth Reports on Implementing the United Nation
s Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination
Against Women
Office of the Status of Women, Department of
the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2003, p. 44, Since 1995, the
Government has undertaken a wide range of initiatives to increase
women s entry and retention in non-traditional areas of employment.
For example:
-
the Special Equity Measures Programme (1995-1999)
funded projects to improve women s access to training in areas of
non-traditional employment. These included several projects to
promote non-traditional occupations as career options for young
women and the provision of training through the Special
Preparatory Courses for Women;
-
the Women in the Australian Defence Force report (1997)
examined women s employment in the defence force and identified
strategies to further enhance recruitment and careers for
women;
-
the Women in submarines booklet (1998) was designed to
assist in addressing issues raised in the Submarine Integration
Study in relation to women serving in the Collins Class submarines.
It also covered women in the Royal Australian Navy in general;
-
the Australasian Council of Women in Policing received funding
to produce a guide (Fitting In or Standing Out?) for women
entering the police profession;
-
the Women in Engineering Committee received funding (1999) to
produce Engineering a Better Workplace (Valuing Diversity and
Engendering a Culture of Inclusivity), a resource kit for
engineering managers and women engineers;
-
several projects (1997-1998) developed strategies and resources
to improve access to training in the metals, engineering and
constructions industries;
-
a research project (1998) examined barriers to women s
participation in apprenticeships in non traditional areas and
developed new models to increase their entry and retention.
No.
|
Applicant
|
Duration of exemption/ Date of comfort letter
|
Date Gazetted
|
Summary
|
1.
|
The
Australian Journalist Association
|
31 Aug
88 30 Aug 90
extended
31.12.90
|
28 Sept
1988
7 Mar
1990
|
Exemption to cover AJA rules which govern the
election of its Federal Council.The rules ensured a minimum and
proportionate representation of women AJA members at the Federal
Council.
|
2.
|
Australian Federal Police
|
19 Oct
89 19 April 90
|
22 Nov
1989
|
Exemption to enable the Commissioner of Police
to select one woman only in the AFP s AUSTCIVPOL contingent in
Cyprus
|
3.
|
Broken
Hill Associated Smelters Pty Ltd
|
26 May
88 23 Feb 89 (dec was appealed, on 17.2.89, AAT set aside Comm dec
& granted exemption until 16.9.90
4 Feb 91
31 May 91
31 May
91 - 31 Dec 92
|
~Feb
1991
~May1991
|
Exemption to cover the exclusion of women from
employment in lead processes.
|
4.
|
University College, the University of New South Wales, Australian
Defence Force Academy
|
6 Aug 91
31 Dec 94
|
~Aug
1991
|
Exemption to enable the University College to
offer a prize for female students completing a postgraduate degree
or diploma at the College.
|
5.
|
The
Australian National University
|
8 Sept
92 31 Dec 95
|
21 Oct
1992
|
Exemption to allow the ANU to offer re -entry
scholarships to women who wish to resume academic studies after a
significant absence.
|
6.
|
A.C.T
Housing and Community Services Bureau
|
31 July
91 31 July 92
|
28 Aug
1991
|
Exemption in respect of the operation of the
Adoption of Children Act 1965 (and regulations there under). This
is to allow the amendment of that act to be finalised.
|
7.
|
Department of Defence
|
31 July
91 31 July 92
|
28 Aug
1991
|
Exemption in respect to the operation of Part
IV of the Defence Act, which relates to compulsory military service
in time of war.
|
8.
|
Attorney
General s
Department (NSW)
|
1 31 Aug
91
re s.36
of the Act
1 Aug 91
30 June 92
re s.40
of the Act
|
16 Oct
1991
|
Exemption in respect of s.36 $ s.40 of the
Factories and Shops and Industries Act 1962 and accompanying reg.
The exemption is until the Occupational Health and safety Manual
handling Regulation 1991 takes effect.
|
9.
|
Office
of Cabinet of Queensland
|
28
February 1992
|
~Mar
1992
|
Exemption to allow women only at a Women s
InfoLink Seminar
|
10.
|
Office
of Cabinet of Queensland
|
9 April
1992
|
~Mar
1992
|
Exemption to allow women only at a second
Women s InfoLink Seminar.
|
11.
|
The
University Of New South Wales
|
18 Mar
93 18 Mar 96
|
31 Mar
1993
|
Exemption to allow the UNSW to offer an
engineering research award to women, to increase the number of
women in engineering research and academic positions.
|
12.
|
Department of Employment, Education and Training ( DEET )
|
1st Scheme
1.8.94
31.12.94
2nd Scheme
1.8.94
31.12.95
|
31 Aug
1994
|
Exemption to cover the ABSTUDY and AUSTUDY
schemes, while the Government proceeds to remove the discriminatory
aspects of these schemes (primarily marital discrimination).
|
13.
|
Department of Employment, Education and Training ( DEET )
|
21 Dec
94 31 Dec 95
|
11 Jan
1995
|
Extension of exemption of AUSTUDY scheme, and application for
exemption to cover the Youth Training Allowance (YTA).
|
14.
|
Department of Employment, Education and Training ( DEET )
|
27 Mar
95 31 Dec 96
|
19 Apr
1995
|
Extension in exemption of AUSTUDY and ABSTUDY
schemes.
|
15.
|
Department of Employment, Education and Training ( DEET )
|
1 Jan 97
31 Dec 97
|
12 Jan
1997
|
Extension in exemption of AUSTUDY and ABSTUDY
schemes.
|
16.
|
Australian Bureau of Statistics
|
1 Apr 95
- 30 Apr 96
|
3 May
1995
|
Exemption to allow a Women s Safety Survey to
be undertaken by female interviewers only
|
17.
|
Multicare Pty Ltd
|
14 Oct
97 3 Feb 00
|
~Oct
1997
|
Exemption to allow employment of attendant
carers n the grounds of their sex.
|
18.
|
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
|
Aug 01 -
Aug 02
|
10 Oct
2001
|
Exemption to allow Woomera residential housing
project whereby female detainee and male detainees up to the age of
12 at the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre will
be eligible to participate in alternative detention arrangements,
namely accommodation in houses outside the Centre
|
19.
|
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
|
16 Aug
02 15 Oct 02
|
11 Sept
2002
|
Extension of time for the Woomera residential
housing project
|
20.
|
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
|
14 Oct
02 14 Oct 03
|
6 Feb
2002
|
Extension of time for Woomera residential
housing project
|
21.
|
Civil
Aviation Safety Authority
|
26 Nov
02 26 Nov 07
|
4 Dec
2002
|
Exemption allows assessment of pregnant women
before a licence can be issued to apply where it prevents the
person from safely fulfilling the inherent requirements of the role
covered by the licence concerned.
|
22.
|
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs
|
19 Sept
03 18 Sept 05
|
15 Oct
2003
|
Exemption to allow female detainees and male
detainees up to the age of 18 at any immigration detention facility
are eligible to participate in alternative detention, namely
accommodation in houses in Woomera
|
23.
|
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs
|
19 Sept
03 18 Sept 05
|
15 Oct
2003
|
Exemption to allow projects to be conducted by
DIMIA at Port Augusta, SA and Port Hedland, WA known as Residential
Housing Projects whereby female detainees and male detainees up to
the age of 18 at any immigration detention facility are eligible to
participate in the alternative detention arrangement.
|
Kirsty Margarey
25 March 2004
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
senators and members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's
contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with
members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2004
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Parliamentary Library, 2004.
Back to top