Statement on Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession) Bill 2004
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission today urged the government not to be hasty in legislating to allow teaching scholarships based on sex rather than merit.
The Commission’s comments are made on the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession) Bill 2004.
Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward said: “If the government wants more male teachers, there are many programs that could encourage male teacher students without requiring amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act or introducing a discriminatory scholarship scheme.”
“Successful programs that have worked to allow more women into traditionally male dominated professions can all 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 either leave the profession mid-career because of poor remuneration, or they are promoted out of the school room to become Principals or Assistant Principals. Programs to stop this exodus and programs to encourage the promotion of a representative number of women teachers into senior administrative positions in schools would both result in more male teachers in the classroom.”
“There are any number of alternative programs that are not discriminatory and which do not need a legislative amendment, such as paying teachers more.”
“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.”
“Front loading the pay of male teacher students through a scholarship, effectively relieving them of the HECS burden their female counterparts will carry into their professional careers, entrenches this inequity and has not been demonstrated to address the disparity in numbers of male and female teachers long term.”
Commissioner Goward commented: “Australia’s efforts to overcome historical and continuing inequalities against women have never been based on enforceable quotas. Australia has long recognised that assisting women to achieve positions based on anything apart from merit may well hinder rather than help in achieving equality. It's about giving everyone a fair go. Removing the requirement for merit in the award of teaching scholarships for young men is a big change from that.”
“The government, and surely the community, needs to be sure the proposed amendment can achieve its purpose before even considering support for any deviation from the merit principle.”
“However, 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”
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.
A copy of the Commission’s decision to decline to grant the exemption sought by the Catholic Education Office can be found on the Commission’s website at http://www.humanrights.gov.au/legal/sda_exemption.html#catholic.
Last updated 10 March 2004.
