Children by Choice Association Inc., Re [2018] QIRC 153
1
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: Re: Children by Choice Association Inc.
[2018] QIRC 153
PARTIES: Children by Choice Association Inc.
(Applicant)
CASE NO: AD/2018/91
PROCEEDING: Application for exemption from certain
provisions
DELIVERED ON: 21 December 2018
HEARING DATE: On the papers
MEMBER: O'Connor VP
ORDER: 1. Children by Choice Association Inc. is
exempt from the operations of sections
14, 15, 15A, 124, and 127 of the Anti-
Discrimination Act 1991 in relation to
attribute in s 7(a).
2. The exemption applies only to acts or
omissions reasonably necessary to
recruit sufficient females into positions,
including Counsellors, Manager,
Communications Coordinator,
Campaign Coordinator, and
Education and Training Coordinator.
3. The exemption shall apply to the
applicant from the date of the
application, 2 November 2018 for a
period not exceeding five years.
CATCHWORDS: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – EXEMPTION –
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF
SEX – Exemption from operation of
provisions prohibiting discrimination –
-- 1 of 7 --
2
services, accommodation, advertising, work –
sex and age – organization providing sexual
assault counselling to women and pregnant
women.
LEGISLATION:
CASES:
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 7(a),
s 14, s 15, s 15A, s 105, s 124, s 127
City of Brunswick: re. Application for
Exemption from provisions of Equal
Opportunity Act (1992) EOC 92-450
Downer EDI Mining [2013] QCAT 99
Exemption application re: Boeing Australia
Holdings Pty Ltd and Ors [2003] QADT 21
Exemption Application re: Mt Isa Mines Ltd
[2001] QADT 16
Exemption application re: Palmpoint Pty Ltd
[2006] QADT 12 (7 April 2006)
Minister for Education and Commissioner for
Equal Opportunity and Ors (1987) EOC 92-
198
Stevens v Fernwood Fitness Centres Pty Ltd
(1996) EOC 92-782
United Synergies Ltd [2015] QCAT 89
APPEARANCES: On the papers
Reasons for Decision
[1] On 2 November 2018 the applicant in this matter, Children by Choice Association Inc.,1
made an application for an exemption from certain provisions of the Anti-Discrimination
Act 1991 (Qld). Section 113 of that Act allows this Commission to exempt an applicant
from complying with sections of the Act. The applicant describes itself, and the services
that it provides, as follows:
1 This application was made by "Children by Choice" as opposed to "Children by Choice Association
Incorporated". I have used the full name of the applicant to give certainty to the application. The application is
amended under s 174B(e) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).
-- 2 of 7 --
3
1. Children by Choice offers counselling services both face to face and over the telephone. This
service is to assist women and pregnant women with decision making while experiencing
unplanned pregnancy.
2. Children by Choice assists women and pregnant women with counselling and financial
assistance when experiencing times of hardship.
[2] The exemption sought by the applicant relates to ss 14, 15, 15A, 124 and 127 of the Act
and is limited to the attribute in s 7(a) "sex" for a period of five years – the maximum
period allowable under the Act.2
[3] Section 14 "Discrimination in the pre-work area" relevantly outlines that a person must
not discriminate in relation to the arrangements made for deciding who should be offered
work, or, in deciding who should be offered work. Section 15 "Discrimination in work
area" prohibits discrimination in the workplace and covers terms of employment; access
to opportunities; terminations of employment; training programs; and, the general
treatment of the worker. Section 15A "Discrimination by principals" prohibits
discrimination against a worker who does work, or is to do work, for another person
because of a contractual arrangement between the principal and a third party, or another
arrangement between a principal and a third party. Section 124 "Unnecessary
information" prohibits a request of unnecessary information on which an unlawful
discrimination might be based. Section 127 "Discriminatory advertising" is a penalty
provision which prohibits the publication and display of advertisements which in any
way contravene the Act; the section also provides a clarification and defences.
[4] Exemption applications of this nature fall within the jurisdiction of this Commission
because the application is work-related.3
[5] Applications for exemptions must be provided to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner
so that the Commissioner has an opportunity to provide submissions on the application.4
Those submissions are also an opportunity for the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to
address whether there are any complaints against the applicant. The Anti-Discrimination
Commissioner's submission, in relation to this application, was received on 14 November
2018. In his correspondence the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner advised that there
were no complaints against the applicant and that he had no objection to the application.
2 Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 113(6)(c).
3 Ibid ss 113, 174B(b).
4 Ibid s 113(2).
-- 3 of 7 --
4
Exemption considerations
[6] The power to exempt an applicant from the operation of a particular part of the Act is
discretionary. On the face of the Act the discretion is, within the bounds of the Act,
absolute. However, over time various considerations have been compiled to ensure that
exemptions are only granted where appropriate.5 Accordingly, the following matters will
be considered:
1. Whether the exemption is necessary;6
2. Whether there are any non-discriminatory ways of achieving the objects or
purposes for which the exemption is sought;7
3. Whether the exemption is in the community interest;8
4. Whether any other persons or bodies other than the applicants support the
application;9
5. Whether it is reasonable and appropriate to grant the exemption;10 and
6. The effect of not granting the exemption.11
[7] At this point it is apposite to mention that the granting of an exemption from certain
sections of the Act is not a trivial matter. In Downer EDI Mining, Member Paratz stated
the following:
An exemption from an Act of the State Parliament, to put the [Applicant] in a different position to
other citizens, is not a matter of routine. The Applicant is seeking to have part of the laws of the
State not apply to it, and that is a significant matter. In appropriate circumstances, where that is
warranted and necessary, then the Tribunal may make such an order, but it not a given result.
The Tribunal always has to have regard to the possible implication of an order. Whilst a blanket
exemption may seem benign on its surface in the context of a well meaning application, the Tribunal
will be concerned that an unnecessary or overly broad order may deprive citizens and claimants of
rights and actions that they would otherwise have.12
[8] In that application, the Member declined to grant the exemption as the applicant company
had not demonstrated that the exemption was needed to achieve the company's aims.13
Further, the Member also considered that the efforts of the applicant company were
arguably promoting equal opportunity and would, therefore, be permissible under s 105.
This decision should be contrasted with the factually similar matter of United Synergies
5 United Synergies Ltd [2015] QCAT 89; Exemption application re: Boeing Australia Holdings Pty Ltd and Ors
[2003] QADT 21, [12].
6 Exemption Application re: Mt Isa Mines Ltd [2001] QADT 16.
7 City of Brunswick: re. Application for Exemption from provisions of Equal Opportunity Act (1992) EOC 92-
450.
8 Ibid.
9 Minister for Education and Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and Ors (1987) EOC 92-198.
10 Stevens v Fernwood Fitness Centres Pty Ltd (1996) EOC 92-782.
11 Minister for Education and Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and Ors (1987) EOC 92-198.
12 Downer EDI Mining [2013] QCAT 99, [16].
13 Ibid [15], [22].
-- 4 of 7 --
5
Ltd.14 In that matter, Senior Member Stilgoe (as her Honour then was) did not consider
the application of s 105 of the Act and granted the application for an exemption.
Whether the exemption is necessary
[9] The applicant submits that the exemption is necessary for the following reasons:
The exemption is necessary to provide certainty for Children by Choice in conducting
recruitment of only woman (into such client facing positions) without fear of a complaint
stemming from a requirement that would normally be unlawful under the Act.
This would be to facilitate the effective provision of services to women including pregnant
women who may be experiencing domestic violence, sexual assault or reproductive coercion
during unplanned pregnancy.
[10] In Palmpoint Pty Ltd the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal dealt with the approach to be
adopted in an application for an exemption under the Act.15 In particular, the QADT dealt
with the purpose of s113 of the Act. Member Venables wrote:
18. Effectively, the provisions of section 113 of the Act allow for a preliminary
determination upon which the applicant can rely, to ensure that the carrying out of their
business is not unlawful. It also allows for the effective monitoring of the matter by
the Tribunal, as exemptions under the section are only applicable for a maximum
period of five years. At the conclusion of the period for which the exemption is granted,
the applicant must reapply for an exemption if they wish to retain the benefit of assured
compliance with the Act, insofar as their conduct remains within the parameters of
exemption granted. Should circumstances change within that period, this will come to
the attention of the Tribunal before any further exemption is granted.
19. In contrast, the provisions of section 104 remain in force indefinitely (until repealed or
amended by parliament) and are open to the interpretation of parties concerned in
circumstances as and when they arise. The section does not provide a reliable shield
against a complaint, as doing acts in accordance with the section, that is, acts “to benefit
the members of a group with an attribute” will almost always involve the doing of an
act which treats persons without the attribute less favourably. Accordingly, it will
almost always run the risk of giving rise to “an arguable case” of unlawful
discrimination.
20. In my view, the purpose of section 113 is to allow people the protection and security
of a shield against complaints in circumstances where their proposed actions do
constitute a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination, but where they are not
inherently inconsistent with the objects of the Act. The section allows for a regular
review of the exemption or, in the alternative, for such exemption to simply expire.
For these reasons, it is desirable in my view to invoke the section in circumstances
such as these.
14 United Synergies Ltd [2015] QCAT 89.
15 Exemption application re: Palmpoint Pty Ltd [2006] QADT 12 (7 April 2006).
-- 5 of 7 --
6
[11] The applicant assists women and pregnant women with counselling and financial
assistance when they are experiencing times of hardship. The counselling services are
both face to face and over the telephone. The applicant submits that many women would
not feel comfortable or safe with a male Counsellor. I accept those submissions and find
that the exemption is necessary as it provides certainty for the applicant; certainty that it
can provide it services targeted at recruiting without fear of successful complaints
stemming from the recruitment process.
Whether there are non-discriminatory ways of achieving the objects or purposes
for which the exemption is sought
[12] The applicant submits that it has not been able to identify any non-discriminatory
methods to achieve the objectives of the services offered by the applicant.
Whether the exemption is in the community interest
[13] In my view, the exemption is in the public interest having regard to the fact that one of
the applicant's aims is the provision of counselling services to women who have
experienced or are experiencing domestic violence, sexual assault or reproductive
coercion.
Whether any other persons or bodies other than the applicant support the
application
[14] The material before the Tribunal does not disclose if any person or body supports the
application. Equally, the material does not disclose if any person or body opposes the
granting of the exemption.
Whether it is reasonable and appropriate to grant the exemption
[15] It is in my view reasonable and appropriate to grant the exemption having regard to the
nature of the services offered by the applicant.
[16] The recruitment of women to numerous positions to provide services to women and
pregnant women in a variety of circumstances may arguably contravene the Act. Whilst
the applicant may well be protected by ss 25, 46(2), 91 and 104, s 206 places the burden
of proof in respect of an exemption or defence on the applicant as respondent to a
complaint alleging discrimination.
[17] The applicant clearly provides an important service for the benefit of women, particularly
those who have experienced or are experiencing domestic violence, sexual assault or
reproductive coercion.
-- 6 of 7 --
7
The effect of not granting the exemption
[18] It is possible to glean from the application that the rejection of the exemption would
restrict the applicant's ability to deliver its services. Not granting an exemption has the
potential to create, albeit a small one, uncertainty for the applicant over its exposure to
complaints. Without the exemption the applicant would not have a "shield" under which
it could conduct its counselling services to assist women and pregnant women.
Conclusion
[19] From the considerations above, I make the following orders.
1. Children by Choice Association Inc. is exempt from the operations of
sections 14, 15, 15A, 124, and 127 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 in
relation to attribute in s 7(a).
2. The exemption applies only to acts or omissions reasonably necessary to
recruit sufficient females into positions, including Counsellors,
Manager, Communications Coordinator, Campaign Coordinator, and
Education and Training Coordinator.
3. The exemption shall apply to the applicant from the date of the
application, 2 November 2018 for a period not exceeding five years.
-- 7 of 7 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QIRC/2018/153