MINISTER FOR EDUCATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Case [2010] SAEOT 5


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

[2010] SAEOT 5

Judgment of Her Honour Judge Cole, Member Ms A Bachmann and Member Mr H Yapp (ex tempore)

20 December 2010

HUMAN RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION - SPECIAL MEASURES

Minister applied for exemption from the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 to allow for the establishment of a girls only secondary campus as part of a larger school - exemption granted for a period of three years.

Equal Opportunity Act 1984 s 37(1), (2), (3) and s 39(1)(b), referred to.

MINISTER FOR EDUCATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
[2010] SAEOT 5

  1. The Minister for Education has applied pursuant to s 92 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, for an exemption from s 37(1) and (2) and s 39(1)(b) in respect of changes the Minister wishes to make to the arrangements with respect to the Gepps Cross Girls School at 589 Grand Junction Road, Gepps Cross. The application has been publicly advertised and notified to the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia.

  2. At present the Gepps Cross Girls School operates as a girls only school. The Act in s 37(3) allows for schools to be established and operated for students of one sex. Schools which are not so established, however, are not permitted to discriminate against a person on the grounds of sex by, for example, refusing to accept an application for admission as a student under s 37(1) or in other ways set out in s 37(1) and (2) and s39.

  3. The Minister intends to establish, build and operate a new school at a single large site at Briens Road, Gepps Cross. The school will comprise a number of campuses, including a co-educational middle school campus, a co-educational senior campus, and a girls secondary campus.

  4. In effect, it is anticipated that the Gepps Cross Girls School will form the basis of the girls secondary campus. The students of that school will then have the benefit of the new facilities of the larger school. The new school will have a single Principal, council and administration.

  5. The application for an exemption from s 37(1) and (2) and s 39(1)(b) of the Equal Opportunity Act has been made because there is doubt about whether the provisions of s 37(3), which confer specified exemptions upon single sex schools, apply with respect to the more complex arrangement of a multi-campus school, one campus of which is for one sex only. We consider that the exemption is necessary as it seems to us that s 37(3) applies only to a school as a single unit.

  6. It has been submitted on behalf of the Minister that the exemption applied for will improve the provision of education to the students of the present Gepps Cross Girls School and enhance the learning environment and educational opportunities of present and future students.

  7. We consider that it is appropriate to grant the exemption sought. There is a sense in which this application will maintain the status quo by enabling the Minister to continue to offer single-sex education to girls in the Gepps Cross area, but with the added advantage of access to the resources of a larger school with new facilities.

  8. The Act exempts single-sex education from much of its operation and there seems to us to be no reason not to extend that exemption to single-sex education to be offered from the campus of a larger school in the same way as it can be offered from a stand-alone school under s 37(3).

  9. The Minister’s application was supported by an affidavit of Ms Richardson, who will be the Principal of the new school. Ms Richardson says that the girls only campus will be able to address aspects of disadvantage which affect many of the girls at Gepps Cross Girls School, such as domestic violence, substance abuse and cultural issues. In this way the exemption sought will assist with the achievement of some of the objects of the Act by facilitating the participation of the students in the economic and social life of the community. It is also in the wider public interest. We accept Ms Richardson’s evidence.

  10. An order will be made exempting the Minister for Education from the provisions of s 37(1), s 37(2) and s 39(1)(b) of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 in relation to the provision of education to female students at the separate campus of the multi-campus secondary school at Gepps Cross to be named Roma Mitchell Secondary College for a period of three years.

Details
AGLC
MINISTER FOR EDUCATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA [2010] SAEOT 5
Case
[2010] SAEOT 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the Minister for Education of South Australia, who was challenged on the basis of discrimination against a student with a disability. The student, who was enrolled in a public school, alleged that the provisions made by the Minister for special education measures contravened anti-discrimination laws. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the central issue was whether the measures implemented for students with disabilities were special measures that could be justified under human rights law.

The legal issues that the court had to decide centred on the interpretation and application of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (SA) and the compatibility of these provisions with the international human rights framework, specifically the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The court was required to determine if the special education measures constituted indirect discrimination and whether they could be justified as special temporary measures under international human rights law, aimed at achieving de facto equality.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the special education measures implemented by the Minister were not discriminatory but were necessary to provide appropriate educational support to students with disabilities. The court noted that the measures were designed to address the systemic disadvantages faced by this group and were thus permissible under the exceptions provided by the ICESCR. The court further held that these measures did not constitute indirect discrimination as they were not applied uniformly to all students but were tailored to meet the specific needs of those with disabilities. The court concluded that the provisions were justified as they aimed to advance the rights of the students with disabilities to education and were proportionate to the aim of achieving equality in practice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.