On one side are the parents (and interested others) expressing concern about the content and motivations behind the 'Safe Schools' program—while the other side, which is frequently accused of using the 'Safe Schools' program to 'push' political agendas, is chock-
There's nothing wrong with a healthy, robust, debate. However, when it comes to the 'Safe Schools' program the dialogue between the two sides is nearly always heated, and any pretence of civility quickly vanishes under the weight of 'ad hominem' attacks. It's little wonder some parents feel bewildered.
The primary focus of Know Bull! has been 'workplace bullying'— but we also provide a small number of school-
A few historical events relevant to the Safe Schools program
Note: In order to get an understanding of 'how' the furore around 'Safe Schools' gained momentum...the (short) parliamentary videos of Senators George Christenson, and Cory Bernardi are highly recommended viewing.
The Safe Schools program was developed by the Safe Schools Coalition, commenced in Victoria on 21 October 2010, and received (initial) national funding of $8 million in 2013. It was intended as a voluntary program, and "Federal funding was sought by openly-
Late February 2016, under Parliamentary privilege, George Christensen claimed the 'Safe Schools' program exposed students to inappropriate sexual material. Christensen also likened the program to a "pedophile grooming a victim". He supported this statement by outlining the specific 'steps to grooming', gleaned from information provided by a NSW peak body involved in Child Sexual Assualt Counselling.
"If parents knew their children were being exposed to this type of material, they would probably not let them go to school. If someone proposed exposing a child to this material, the parents would probably call the police because it sounds a lot like the grooming work that a sexual predator might undertake," Christensen said.
Also in late February 2016, Senator Bernardi called on the Government to withdraw funding for the 'Safe Schools' program. As with a number of other political figures, Senator Bernardi saw 'Safe Schools' as a "radical" program that was "indoctrinating" children. Later, in an interview with the ABC he stated that children were "being bullied and intimidated into complying with a radical program".
Labor senator Penny Wong, who was among those who announced the initial funding, dismissed criticisms that the 'Safe Schools' program was ideological, and that the program (was) addressing discrimination against LGBTI community. While the Safe Schools Coalition dismissed all claims in their entirety (Wikipedia)".
Then about three weeks later, and again under Parliamentary privilege, George Christensen named Gary Dowsett, the deputy director of the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University (where the Safe Schools Coalition project originated), of being behind the anti-
In the article Dowsett wrote that many mothers and fathers found their children "sexual" and activities such as cuddling, bathing and breastfeeding "generate sexual responses in their parents. How different, then," queries Dowsett, "is that gentle, tentative sexuality between parent and child from the love of a pedophile and his/her lover? From all accounts, and from many academic studies — some worse than others — that kind of love, warmth, support and nurture is an important part of the pedophilic relationship" (Source).
Further into the article Dowsett proclaims "...the current pedophilia debate then is crucial to the political processes of the gay movement: pedophiles need our support, and we need to construct the child/adult sex issue on our terms."
Mr Christensen noted that Dowsett had served on Victoria’s ministerial advisory committee on gay and lesbian health between 2000 and 2002, where he was able to advocate the precursor to Safe Schools Coalition program.
"I think it would shock many parents to know that a pedophilia advocate is overseeing the organisation that came up with the Safe Schools program," he told parliament, and that "Given this shocking information, it is imperative all federal funding for Safe Schools is suspended immediately pending a full parliamentary inquiry" (Source).
Various politicians supported Mr Christensen's call for de-
Before, during, and after Senator Cory Bernardi's office in Adelaidse was 'stormed'
Let's cut to the chase
Corey Bernardi's office was trashed because he questioned the validity of the 'Safe Schools' program, and then sought to have the program de-
Question 1: Is the 'Safe Schools' Program really an anti-
Justification: Because one of the two main founders of the 'Safe Schools' program (Roz Ward) declared that it wasn't an anti-
"...Safe Schools Coalition is about supporting gender and sexual diversity. Not about celebrating diversity. NOT ABOUT STOPPING BULLYING. It’s about gender and sexual diversity. About same-
You can view the full transcript from the video, and you can watch the video here.
At a conference on Marxism last year in Melbourne she bragged about how she developed the SSC for the express purpose of implementing Marxism in the classroom. She has repeatedly spoken about how she wants to use the school system to agitate for Marxist economic and social policy. Source: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/03/17/seven-
Arguments against the program
One of the major criticisms about the
Sex education in schools is being dictated by activist-
Senator Bernardi has called on the Government to withdraw funding for the program.
"It makes everyone fall into line with a political agenda.
It also receives some state funding, with the Victorian Government allocating $1.04 million in its 2015-
inally, listen to the following (excellent) podcast by Dr Gary Namie from the Workplace Bullying Institute (link opens small popup window), 33mins in length:
The following is a representative sample of the information and sentiments in the public domain about the 'Safe Schools' program.
Where would we be without ill-
Anyway, another 'gift' came along this week in the shape of an article by a few HR bods who wanted to have a bit of a 'spit' about the FWC's new anti-
According to a Department of Education spokesperson, individual schools determine whether or not to participate in the Safe Schools program, and all NSW public schools are "required to consult with parents prior to using Safe Schools resources with students in class”. Futher, "parents can choose to opt their child out of any Safe Schools lesson...or, any lesson using Safe Schools resources".
Further, the new anti-
There's an organisation where a workplace bully has been active for a couple of years. A number of staff have been treated badly...some have become ill...some may have even left. Then one 'target' decides enough is enough. They've asked HR to assist them in resolving the bullying, but their request falls on deaf ears—and the HR staff sides with the bully—their golf buddy. There's an anti-
Enter the FWC. Based on the above scenario...What can you expect?
Firstly, the anti-
For the sake of the scenario, we'll say the organisation does fall under the anti-
From the FWC's point of view there's a few things they need to establish before hearing any workplace bullying claim:
1. The applicant reasonably believes they've been bullied at work
2. That the worker was bullied at work by an individual or group, and
3. There's a risk the bullying will continue
Once the FWC is satisfied the above has been established, they'll make any orders deemed necessary to prevent the worker being subjected to further workplace bullying. Also note that the amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), now includes a definition of 'workplace bullying' [See Fair Work Act s.789FD(1)]:
Workplace bullying occurs when:
• an individual or group of individuals repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards a worker or a group of workers at work,
• the behaviour creates a risk to health and safety.
The key words are bolded in the FWC Benchbook, so we'll take a brief look at those. Repeatedly: workplace bullying consists of repeated behaviours, and is generally not a one-
Based on the scenario, what kinds of orders could be made? (remember—this is only speculative). While the order 'to stop' bullying will be made, other possible orders might include:
1. Either the 'bully' or 'target' be moved to a separate work site (if another site exists)
2. They could be moved to opposing shifts (if shiftwork, or rotational roster is available)
3. If neither of these options are available—they could be moved further apart (physically) in the workplace
4. The 'bully' may receive an order to refrain from certain behaviours such as emailing, confronting, or admonishing the 'target', and that requests to the 'target' be made via a senior manager, or some other third party
5. The organisation may be required to bring their policies up to date, and to promote them among staff, and train senior managers
6. The 'bully' may be required to attend various 'workshops' or training such as 'Being a Better Manager 101'
7. The organisation will have a certain amount of time to comply, and could also be monitored for compliance.
Key Points (a.k.a. addressing some of the propaganda):
The goal of this legislation (once workplace bullying is found to exist)— is to prevent it from re-
The legislation is not about extracting some amount of financial payment from the bully or the organisation. The only time 'money' will enter into the equation is if the orders are breached (not complied with). An organisation or individual could then be prosecuted and incur penalties— up to $51,000 for corporations, and $10,200 for individuals
The legislation is not about adding financial burden, or meddling in organisations rights to determine workers' hours or rosters. If two workers need to be separated to prevent workplace bullying re-
If the organisation doesn't have additional sites— some other arrangement will be worked out, and this will be achieved through consultation and agreement between the parties.
The Commission will not place an unworkable, or highly prohibitive order on an individual or organisation. Orders need to be workable and acceptable in order to achieve the goal: to prevent workplace bullying from re-
And in the event thngs don't go as swimmingly as the organisation desires— they can have the matter relisted with the Commission for further conference.
Note there is no requirement that the target of the workplace bullying be suffering an 'injury' in order to have an anti-
As the current legislation stands, workers can approach the FWC without notifying their organisation, and the FWC will deal with matters in 14 days. However, the then Abbott government was proposing changes to the jursdiction with the requirement of the bullying claim going to a gatekeeper first— before going to FWC. Possible gatekeepers would be the relevant WHS regulator in your State or Territory. So you need to keep an eye out for these potential changes.
Finally, some (propagandists) say the 14-
In conclusion, as far as where Know Bull! stands with regard to the anti-
[13 April 2014]
Recommended resources to resources to bring you up to speed quickly
For a little effort the following resources will provide a wealth of information...the kind of 'information' that's generally omitted in the marketing 'hype' and falsehoods that 'Safe Schools Saves Lives', and that it's an 'anti-
1. Bill Muehlenberg has an excellent webpage titled, Seven Things You Must Know about the Safe Schools Program (dated Mar 17, 2016), and it's a 'must read' for all concerned parents. And if you have the time -
"The taxpayer funded Safe Schools Coalition has certainly been in the spotlight recently – and for good reason. It is an absolute shocker of a program, and the more folks learn about it, the less they like it. Pretending to be an anti-