Mrs GASH (2:25 PM) —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to claims that the Catholic Education Office might have utilised certain provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act in order to provide gender specific scholarships for teachers?

Mr HOWARD (Prime Minister) —My attention has been drawn to a claim made on radio station 2UE this morning by the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that it was not necessary to amend the Sex Discrimination Act in order to achieve the purposes of the Catholic Education Commission. Specifically, he based that claim on a reference to the so-called `special measures' clauses of the Sex Discrimination Act. Under the subheading `Special measures intended to achieve equality' the special measures clauses say:

and then it goes on to list other situations which are clearly not relevant to this.

Mr Speaker, may I say, through you to the Leader of the Opposition, that the Catholic Education Commission was not seeking substantive equality between men and women on this issue; it was seeking in a commonsense way the permission of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to a proposition that it should offer gender specific scholarships to encourage men into teaching. The issue of the application of section 7D was in fact addressed by the human rights commission when it made its decision.

Ms Roxon —No, it wasn't.

The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister has the call.

Mr HOWARD —This is what the Sex Discrimination Commissioner had to say—

The SPEAKER —The member for Gellibrand now deliberately defies the chair. The Prime Minister has the call.

Mr HOWARD —This is what the Sex Discrimination Commissioner had to say in her ruling, the very ruling which has brought about the decision of the government to seek a commonsense amendment to the act:

and she is referring there to the CEO of the education commission—

I am constrained to say that a plan to provide gender specific scholarships for men could hardly be argued as something seeking substantive equality between men and women. It was designed to help the students of the Catholic schools, not to achieve the substantive equality. The commissioner then goes on to say:

In other words, it was based upon the interests of the students. The only opportunity that was available for the Catholic Education Office was an exemption under section 44. 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. In other words, those 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.

We on this side of the House stand behind commonsense. We on this side of the House believe that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission should have granted the exemption in the first place. I have to say with all due respect to those placed in authority in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that it does strike me as odd that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission made the decision it did on this issue, yet on a number of previous occasions exemptions in not entirely dissimilar circumstances have been granted.

There have been three exemptions that are similar in concept to the exemption that the government now feels necessary to legislate. In August 1991, HREOC granted an exemption to allow the University College Australian Defence Force Academy to offer a prize for female students completing a postgraduate degree or diploma at the college. In October 1992, HREOC approved an exemption to allow the ANU to offer re-entry scholarships to women wishing to resume academic studies after a significant absence. In March 1993, HREOC granted an exemption to the University of New South Wales to allow them to offer an engineering research award to women to increase the number of women in engineering research and academic positions. Can I say that they were entirely commonsense decisions.

What we are doing now is responding to the call of commonsense. Commonsense requires that in a situation such as this the attempt of the Catholic Education Commission to get a few more men into teaching in Catholic schools ought to be accommodated. The human rights commission has ordained that it is contrary to the act. We have to accept that. The only commonsense alternative is to legislate to change the act. We on this side of the House are prepared to do it. It is an exercise in commonsense. Through you, Mr Speaker, I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to get out of the way and facilitate this commonsense change that will help the cause of providing more male role models to Australian boys.