Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Thursday, 5 August 2004) . . Page.. 3572 ..

The committee specifically rejected the Stefaniak approach of displacing women or considering women less desirable as teachers than men, and recommended the provision of a substantial number of HECS-free scholarships for equal numbers of males and females. But instead of acting on the recommendation of the House of Representatives Committee, the federal government went ahead with its Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession) Bill 2004. It took the same approach as the bill we are considering here, by allowing the provision of gender-specific scholarships in relation to school teaching courses.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee carried out an extensive investigation into the federal bill and produced its report entitled Provisions of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession) Bill 2004. At page 30 of that report, it considered the above reports in its deliberations and it concluded that “there is no evidence to suggest that increasing the number of male teachers will enhance educational outcomes for boys nor that the perceived lack of role models for boys in school, and associated behavioural issues, is any way linked to their educational outcomes”.

It concluded “that the committee is mindful of evidence that it is the quality of teaching and learning provision, and not teaching gender, that has the most profound impact on scholastic outcomes”. The disparity between males and females is a labour market issue that requires longer-term strategic and labour market planning. The Commonwealth bill was then rejected in the Senate.

The Labor Party at the federal level has developed a five-point plan for increasing the participation of men in teaching, including a national campaign for attracting quality entrants into teaching, targeting men with relevant skills and backgrounds, encouraging more male mentors to work with schools and parents, incentives for relevant specialist skills and student discipline, and welfare programs targeted at boys. Roles and behaviours appropriate to people of different genders are assumed through the whole gamut of social and learning activities, such as parental influence, peer group pressure, the media, social structures and power relations within the wider society.

The education system makes a specialised and limited contribution to this process. If teachers are not chosen for their ability, but because of their sex, the measure proposed is not rationally related to the objective being pursued.

The approach of this bill is not justified in the light of its objective, either for the immediate purpose for which it is proposed, or for the general purpose of providing equal number of male and female employees in any profession or workplace. Where it is considered in the public interest, there are ways of achieving that objective that do not require discrimination on the basis of a person’s sex. The bill should not be allowed to pass. It is contemptuous of the rights of aspiring teachers to be dealt with equally before the law, and not to be discriminated against because of their sex.

I will conclude on the other cognate bill we are discussing—the Discrimination Amendment Bill 2004 (No 2)—and close debate on that speech, which I introduced on 24 June 2004. It fulfils the government commitment to amend the Discrimination Act to put the meaning of the law and special measures beyond doubt. I described the content of the bill in some detail when I presented it. I will not labour the detail again today. I just

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .