BishopAccountability.org
 
 

Victorian School Principals Raise Concerns over Legal Document Promising Protection from Child Abuse

By Tim Lamacraft
ABC News
August 10, 2016

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-10/principals-wary-of-signing-legal-promise-to-keep-students-safe/7718352

School principals in Victoria have complained of being forced to sign a legal document promising to keep their students safe from child abuse.

All Catholic, independent and government schools in Victoria have until the end of September to confirm they are compliant with a new code of conduct that is designed to prevent child abuse.

To prove their compliance, school principals and school council presidents must sign a statutory declaration, something that a group of principals have told the ABC they were opposed to.

"I suppose why principals are objecting is because it's the first time ever we've been asked to sign a legal document attesting to our compliance, or at least our intent to be compliant," Anne Gawith, principal of Dimboola Memorial Secondary College, told PM.

"I think that obviously raises a whole heap of issues that if something goes awry in your school, or someone else doesn't adhere to the child safe standards, that you're personally liable for that."

The new standards are part of the State Government's response to the Victorian Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Organisations, and its subsequent Betrayal of Trust Report.

Overseeing the process is the Victorian Registration Qualification Authority (VRQA), the organisation responsible for ensuring the qualifications for educational staff throughout the state.

According to VRQA director Lynn Glover, "if a school principal or council president signs a statutory declaration attesting to the truthfulness of certain statements, which they know to be false, they may face criminal charges".

"However, signing a statutory declaration does not make you legally liable for abuse which occurs on school grounds," Ms Glover explained.

"As is the case now, and irrespective of whether a statutory declaration is signed, liability depends on whether reasonable steps were taken to protect a child."

But, while none of the principals who spoke to the ABC disagreed with the implementation of new standards, the requirement to sign a statutory declaration was of great concern.

"I also feel that I would prefer not to be doing that in terms of the stat dec," Margaret-Anne Wright, principal of Wedderburn College, said.

Ms Gawith explained why she herself thought the requirement to sign a statutory declaration was problematic.

"I would like to think that we're pretty well compliant, however there will always be reviewing, there'll be analysing, there'll be going back over our documents and making sure that they are up to date," she said.

"So I would be signing that 'to the best of our knowledge, at this point in time, we are for the most part compliant, but with the rider that there will always be more work to do'."

The VRQA said this kind of declaration, put forward by Ms Gawith, would suffice.

Suggested sample code of conduct 'low-rent'

There have also been rumblings about the sample code of conduct sent out to schools by the Department of Education and the VRQA.

Examples, such as bans on staff having any contact with a child or family outside of school, have been described as unworkable, particularly by principals working in rural areas.

"We took on board that sample code of conduct that was disseminated to all schools," Ms Gawith said.

"But given we're a rural community, given we've only got just under 200 secondary students at our school, everyone is involved in local organisations."

Another principal said "some of the examples are really low-rent I'm afraid to say".

While the VRQA said the sample code was for guidance only, another secondary school principal (who also did not wish to be named) said some schools felt obliged to stick to the sample, as it is suggested they do.

"Why would they put them in there if they didn't want you to follow them?" he said.

Confusion surrounding legal process

More than one principal expressed confusion around the process.

"I can see that some schools will need extra support and some school council presidents will need extra support because it would be unfair to ask anyone to sign a legal document without being fully abreast of what that actually means," Ms Gawith said.

Another principal said there had been too much consultation on the process, but not of the right kind.

"By last week I'd been passed upwards of 25 documents to read on this work. It's a farce when there's that much being written by office-bound 'project officers' forwarded to principals in the guise of 'support'," he said.

"I know a school that ended up paying an external consultant to produce a lot of the paper work."

There has also been criticism on the pace of the process.

"It's probably come about quite quickly and we've had fairly tight timelines to meet," Ms Wright said.

"We have to sign this document off on the last day of September, so in order to get everything organised we've had to work fairly fast."

 

 

 

 

 




.

 
 

Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.