A 15-year-old former student of a Victorian secondary school (the School) is suing the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (the Department), following the School’s alleged lack of sufficient action during a two-year period in which the student states that he was subject to homophobic bullying. The School has acknowledged that the bullying took place, although the Principal has said that the student did not state at the time that the bullying was related to his sexuality. The student has been diagnosed with a major depressive episode and severe anxiety, and has moved to a different school.
The student alleges that the bullying took place during a two year period, during which another student harassed, bullied and intimidated him, and recruited other students to participate in the bullying. The student has stated that he was bullied because he is gay. During the period of the bullying, the student states that he was called a variety of slurs, including ‘f****t’, and was told by a bully that he should kill himself. The student also alleges that on one occasion, another student threatened to kill him and that he was beaten with a skateboard.
The student’s mother alleges that she made repeated requests for the bullies to be expelled, but that they instead were given short suspensions by the School. The student then reported the matter to the Police, and obtained an intervention order against the main bully. The Age reports that the Principal of the School acknowledges that the bullying was taking place when he provided a statement in support of the intervention order.
Despite the intervention order being in place, the student’s mother alleges that the student and the bully were placed in the same class. She has stated that this gave the bully a further opportunity to intimidate the student.
During this period, the student attempted suicide on two occasions. His mother has spent $4000 on counselling and the student continues to self-harm.
Schools owe their students a duty of care, which means they must take reasonable steps to provide a safe environment for students to learn. The student’s lawyer argues that the School breached its duty of care by failing to adequately protect the student from the bullying. In addition to the alleged breach of duty of care, the student’s mother reports that she was required to pay for counselling so that her son received adequate support.
The Department released a statement saying that the School took appropriate disciplinary action in response to a series of bullying incidents and that counselling was offered to students. It is currently unclear whether the counselling was made available to the student, given that the mother maintains that she was required to pay for counselling.
The Department’s policies towards medical expenses incurred by students does allow for parents to be compensated for costs incurred. A Department spokeswoman stated that the Department occasionally reimbursed parents for medical expenses in circumstances where the Department has been negligent. This has not been proven in this case, but it demonstrates that this matter can be resolved through the internal procedures that already exist within the Department
As stated above, a school’s duty to provide a safe and supportive environment requires the school to create and implement policies and procedures to prevent and address bullying incidents. Staff should be able to recognise bullying behaviour and intervene to protect students.
The case against the Department is particularly relevant to schools around Australia given the controversy surrounding the Safe Schools program (the Program), which was introduced to ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) students are provided with a safe learning environment. The controversy is fundamentally based on differences of political opinion regarding how schools should satisfy their duty of care towards their LGBTI students. For example, Adelaide Now reports that Federal Senator Cory Bernardi has stated that the Program pushed a ‘gay agenda’ and stated in an email that the Program constitutes bullying towards heterosexual students. Federal MP George Christensen is quoted in The Guardian as saying that the Program compares to child grooming.
The Program is currently the subject of a Federal inquiry, although only one school has already left the Safe Schools Coalition following parental pressure.
The Program was first introduced in 2010 and has grown to include 250 schools in Victoria alone. The Victorian Government has announced that it intends to roll out the Program to every government school by 2018. This commitment may depend on the outcome of the Federal inquiry, although Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has condemned the review, saying that “there is absolutely nothing wrong with this effective little program”.
The School that is being sued by the former student has joined the Safe Schools Coalition, which demonstrates that the School is taking active steps to protect LGBTI students from bullying. For schools generally, the Program can provide a guide on how bullying can be prevented and a safe environment for all students can be created.
It is clear that all schools have a duty to protect their students from bullying. What is less clear is whether the Program, which actively promotes safety, acceptance and proactive efforts to improve inclusiveness, should be the benchmark when evaluating whether a school has discharged their duty of care towards their LGBTI students. Non-government schools may be affiliated with religious bodies which have specific teachings on sexuality, which can complicate the process of creating policies and procedures that adequately satisfy a school’s duty of care.
Support is available for anyone who may be interested in information on suicide prevention by phoning Lifeline 13 11 14; Mensline 1300 789 978; Kids Helpline 1800 551 800.