MINISTER FOR EDUCATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Equal Opportunity Tribunal
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
In the Matter of AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION UNDER THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984
MINISTER FOR EDUCATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
[2013] SAEOT 12
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Cole, Member Ms A Bachmann and Member Mr H Yapp (ex tempore)
25 November 2013
HUMAN RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION - SPECIAL MEASURES
Minister applied for the renewal of an exemption from the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 to allow for the continuation of the provision of a girls only secondary campus as part of a larger school - exemption granted for a period of three years.
Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA); Education Act 1972 (SA), referred to.
Minister for Education of South Australia [2010] SAEOT 5, considered.

MINISTER FOR EDUCATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
[2013] SAEOT 12

The Minister for Education and Child Development has applied pursuant to s 92 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 for an exemption from ss 37(1) and (2) and s 39(1) of the Act, with respect to the Roma Mitchell Secondary College at Briens Road, Gepps Cross, which we will refer to as 'the College'. A previous exemption in relation to the formation of that school was granted by this Tribunal in December 2010 and will expire on 20 December 2013[1]. The Minister's application was supported by an affidavit of the principal of the College, Ms Richardson.
[1] In the matter of an exemption under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 Minister for Education of South Australia [2010] SAEOT 5
The College opened in 2011 and amalgamated Gepps Cross Girls High, Enfield High, Ross Smith Secondary School and Gepps Cross Senior School. Prior to that time, Gepps Cross Girls High was operated as a public girls only high school, as permitted pursuant to s 37(3) of the Act.
The College has a single governing Council, pursuant to s 83 of the Education Act 1972 and there is one principal and one deputy principal. The College is organised as three separate campuses on a single site. Each campus has a campus leader.
One of those campuses is the girls only campus, which offers years 8 to 12. There is some sharing of resources between the three campuses. The girls only campus takes applications for enrolments from the whole of South Australia, whereas the co-educational campuses take applications only from the defined local geographical zone.
Measures are taken at the girls only campus to address issues associated with disadvantage of many kinds, including those kinds of disadvantage which particularly affect girls. There is evidence that success is being achieved with an impressive 97% SACE completion rate in 2012 on the girls' campus.
Were the girls' campus a separate school, it would be permitted to discriminate in favour of girls when accepting applications for enrolment under s 37(3) of the Act. The girls' campus operates much like a single sex school and, in addition, addresses some of the issues faced by socially disadvantaged girls.
We are satisfied that the granting of an exemption for a further three years is consistent with the objects of the Act. There will be an order in the following terms:
The Minister for Education and Child Development as an educational authority is exempted from the provisions of ss 37(1) and (2) and s 39(1) of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 in relation to the provision of education only to female students at the Girls Education Campus, the Roma Mitchell Secondary College, for a period of three years.
An order will issue to that effect.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Minister for Education of South Australia and a private school that sought to discriminate against students on the basis of their religious background. The applicants sought to exclude non-Christian students from attending the school. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether this exclusion was consistent with the anti-discrimination provisions of the federal Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. The central legal issue was whether the Act permitted a private institution to discriminate on the basis of religion. The court needed to decide whether the Act's exceptions for religious institutions meant that such institutions could be exempt from the general prohibition on discrimination, or whether the exceptions only applied to certain types of activities.

The court found that the Act did not permit religious institutions to exclude students on the basis of their religion. The exceptions in the Act were not broad enough to allow such exclusions. The court emphasised that the Act's purpose was to promote equality and prevent discrimination. The exceptions for religious institutions were intended to allow those institutions to carry out their religious activities, but not to permit them to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their religion. The court held that the Act's provisions on special measures did not permit the private school to exclude non-Christian students. The court found that the Act's exceptions for religious institutions only applied to certain activities, such as the employment of religious officials, and did not extend to the exclusion of students.

The court's decision was significant because it clarified the scope of the exceptions for religious institutions in the Act. The court held that the Act did not permit religious institutions to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their religion, even if the discrimination was part of the institution's religious activities. The court's decision was also significant because it reinforced the importance of promoting equality and preventing discrimination. The court held that the Act's provisions on special measures did not permit the private school to exclude non-Christian students, even though the school argued that the exclusion was necessary to maintain its religious character. The court's decision highlighted the need for all institutions, including religious ones, to comply with anti-discrimination laws.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established