5. An advertisement was placed on the SACAT website inviting submissions in relation to the application by close of business on 5 December 2025. No submissions were received.

1. Part 3 of the EO Act (ss 29 - 50) prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.
2. Section 37(1) of the EO Act provides that it is unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a person on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status -

a. by refusing or failing to accept an application for admission as a student; or > > b. in the terms or conditions on which it offers to admit the person as a student.

3. Section 37(2) of the EO Act relevantly provides that it is unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a person on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status -

a. in the terms or conditions on which it provides the student with training or education; or > > b. by denying or limiting access to a benefit provided by the authority; or > > ... > > d. by subjecting the student to other detriment.

4. Under s 37(3), the discrimination identified in ss 37(1) and (2) does not apply in respect of:
   1. admission to a school, college, university or institution established wholly or mainly for students of the one sex; or
   2. the admission of a person to a school, college or institution (not being a tertiary level school, college or institution) if the level of education or training sought by the person is provided only for students of the one sex; or
   3. the provision at a school, college, university or institution of boarding facilities for students of the one sex.
5. Section 39(1) of the EO Act provides that it is unlawful for a person who offers or provides:

1. goods; or 2. services to which this Act applies,

(whether for payment or not) to discriminate against another on the ground of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status -

1. by refusing or failing to supply the foods or perform the services; or

1. in the terms or conditions on which or the manner in which the goods are supplied or the services are performed.

1. Under s 92, the Tribunal can grant an exemption from requirements of the EO Act, including Part 3, for a period of three years. An exemption can be renewed indefinitely.
2. The EO Act also provides for general exemptions from the prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity under Part 3. If a general exemption applies, there is no need for an exemption under s 92. Relevantly, s 47 provides:

This Part does not render unlawful an act done for the purpose of carrying out a scheme or undertaking intended to ensure that persons of a particular sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, have equal opportunities with, respectively, all other persons, in circumstances to which this Part applies.

1. The issue which falls for consideration in this application is whether, having regard to the evidence presented to the Tribunal and the general objects of the EO Act, there are proper grounds for granting the exemption sought pursuant to s 92 of the EO Act.[3] In considering whether to grant the exemption it is first necessary to consider whether the provision of girls-only education at the Girls' Campus of RMSC amounts to unlawful discrimination. If it is not unlawful then no s 92 exemption is required.[4]
2. This requires the Tribunal to assess whether the provision of girls-only education at the Girls' Campus of RMSC is covered by the general exemption in s 47 as 'a scheme or undertaking intended to ensure that persons of a particular sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, have equal opportunities with, respectively, all other persons'.
3. For the following reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the provision of girls-only education at the Girls' Campus of RMSC does fit within the exemption in s 47.
   1. Single sex education for girls is accepted as a measure to promote equal opportunities for girls. The Affidavit of Antonia Carellas contains six research papers in support of the value of single-sex education for girls.[5]
   2. Single sex education is a recognised exception from the general prohibition on sex discrimination, in s 37(3) of the EO Act. The only reason that the Girls' Campus is not covered by this protection of same-sex education for 'schools' and 'colleges' is the unique structure of the RMSC that is a result of the amalgamation of previously separate schools.
   3. The provision of girls-only education at the Girls' Campus of RMSC is a 'scheme or undertaking' under s 47, and it is intended to ensure that girls have equal opportunities with other persons. The affidavit of Antonia Carellas, a Principal of the School, discusses some of the aspects of the Girls' Campus that indicate its focus on providing girls with equal opportunity in their education, including:
      1. 80% of students receive support to improve their English because English is an additional language or dialect for them;
      2. 35% of students are School Card holders;
      3. 8.7% are identified as students with disabilities;
      4. A significant proportion of the young women at the Girls' Campus have personal lives that are affected by factors such as being from refugee families, chronic poverty, domestic violence, substance abuse and sexual abuse. These young women can be at heightened risk of bullying and harassment in co-educational schools.

Single-sex schooling can help disadvantaged girls to have the same choices and opportunities as other young women during this critical time in their lives and better changes for disadvantaged girls completing secondary education. Girls' schools can be seen as safer, more welcoming and more likely to build confidence and positive attitudes to learning'.

1. Providing disadvantaged girls with opportunities through education in the Girl's Campus of RMSC is precisely the kind of activity that falls within the general exemption in s 47 of the Act.
2. In their submission, the applicant accepts that the application for an exemption fits within the meaning of s 47. As they state: 'The Girls' Campus exists to enhance the learning environment and educational opportunities of present and future female students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.'[6]
3. Despite this submission in relation to s 47, the applicants seek an exemption under s 92 because there is always a degree of uncertainty as to whether or not the actions are lawful.[7]
4. The Tribunal finds that it is not appropriate to grant an exemption under s 92 when the scheme of education offered at the Girls' Campus is already covered by the general exemption in s 47. The evident purpose of the general exemptions is to negate the need to consider a specific exemption under s 92. The benefit of a general exemption is that it is not time limited. The generality of the exemption is an indication that the activity is, by its nature, consistent with the purposes of the Act.
5. The Tribunal does not accept that it is nonetheless appropriate to grant an exemption under s 92 because 'there is always a degree of uncertainty as to whether or not the actions are lawful'.[8] On the contrary, the Tribunal's finding that the general exemption applies to the Girls' Campus at RMSC makes it abundantly clear that the operation of the Girls' Campus is consistent with the EO Act, and removes the uncertainty of having to apply for exemptions every three years under s 92.

1. I am satisfied that the provision of girls-only education at the Girls' Campus of RMSC promotes equality of opportunity for female students consistent with the objects of the Act.
2. Providing girls-only education at the Girls' Campus is not unlawful discrimination within the meaning of ss 37(1), 37(2) and 39(1) of the Act as it falls within the general exemption in s 47 of the Act.
3. It is unnecessary, in the circumstances, to grant an exemption under s 92 of the EO Act to the applicants for the purpose of providing girls-only education at the Girls' Campus of RMSC.

1. The application for an exemption under s 92 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 is dismissed.

[1] Outline of Argument, filed on behalf of the applicant, Minister for Education, Training and Skills, by the Crown Solicitor for the State of South Australia, 17 November 2025 (Outline of Argument).

[2] Affidavit of Antonia Carellas, 17 November 2025 (Affidavit).

[3] Pulteney Gramar School v Equal Opportunity Tribunal, Walford Anglican School for Girls Inc and Annesley College [2007] SASC 308, para [14].

[4] Wallmans Lawyers [2020] SACAT 1, para [20].