|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Australia
& South Pacific
Australia: school principal denounces removal of teacher
By Will Marshall
27 April 2005
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
At the beginning of the 2005 school year, the Labor government
in the Australian state of Victoria forced a young teacher to
resign. Andrew Phillips, who taught at Orbost Secondary College
in rural Victoria, was suspended from teaching for a minor sexual
offence he committed over a decade ago (See Australia:
Victorian government forces young teacher to quit)
Phillips resigned from the Education Department in February,
rather than face being sacked under recent legislation that deems
any person convicted of a sexual offence against a child ineligible
for employment in the teaching service, irrespective of the date
of conviction. The Miscellaneous Amendments Act 2003 is one of
a range of measures introduced to intimidate and make it easier
to dismiss teachers and principals.
In 1992, prior to beginning his teaching career, Phillips,
then aged 20, had a consensual relationship with a girl who was
15. He was charged with a sexual offence, but no conviction was
recorded and he was released on a good behaviour bond.
The details of his plight only came to light after the principal
at Orbost Secondary, John Brazier, wrote to the media protesting
his treatment and insisting that the government reinstate the
young teacher. Brazier spoke to the WSWS about his decision to
take up the case publicly.
Can you describe Orbost Secondary College and your own record?
Orbost is a Year 7-12 government school with about 370 students.
There are 35 teachers at the school. Orbost was a strong timber
town but a number of the mills have been closed over the last
ten years. Its a town that has gone through hard times.
I have spent 15 years in the Victorian government education system,
and 20 years in independent schools. This is my second year at
Orbost.
Can you give a brief description of what Andrew Phillips
was like as a teacher?
I appointed him last year. He had taught at a country technical
college for five years prior to that. He has an unblemished record
and was known as an outstanding teacher. He is very good with
the less motivated students. The kids love him. He is a real character.
He was always throwing himself into extra things like the cricket
tour. For the last week of the holidays he took a team of country
school kids to go and play against schools in Melbourne. For instance
they played against Brighton Grammar, and won. He then finds out
through the pages of the [Melbourne] Herald Sun that he
is going to be sacked just when he gets back. It seems the Department
may have leaked this to the press.
Principals have generally been reticent to speak out about
issues in education. Why did you take up this particular issue?
I think I would always stand against something that was very
wrong. I didnt expect the amount of debate that has followed
the letter I wrote to the Age. I took all this up on the
first day back from the holidays. Andrew Phillips found out about
all of this then. I wrote a letter to a senior member of the Department
and I didnt even get a response. I said that I would assist
this teacher in every way that I could and through every channel.
Nobody Ive spoken to says that there is any justice in how
the government is treating Phillips. Can you give me any other
example of how someone can be punished twice for the same offence?
The government clearly hasnt accepted the magistrates
decision. He said that the incident in 1992 would not affect Phillips
career. And Andrew never hid it from anyone.
I know that there was an age gap between Andrew and his girlfriend
at the time, but if she had been only two months older it never
would have been an issue. I have repeatedly said that there is
no place for paedophiles in schools, but Andrew is not one, and
he is no danger to the students. With retrospective legislation,
Andrew is being punished twice for the same offence. I cant
think of this happening in any other profession.
What has been the impact of this on the students and teachers
at your school?
For a term the students have had a very piecemeal education
in the subjects that Andrew taught. Weve tried to cover
his loss as best we can. The VCE [final year] students doing Accounting
have been enrolled in Distance Education so that at least they
can have a body of notes. Its not the best way to go. Kids
have a great sense of justice, more so than many adults. There
isnt one student who is pleased to see him go. If there
is a family at the school who agrees with the government decision
I havent heard from them. Amongst the teachers there is
unanimous support. Theyre calling for his reinstatement.
They wrote to the minister but there was no response. They have
also written to the media. I have had about 200 contacts via e-mail,
letters and phone calls from various people in the community.
They have written to me saying that this is terribly important.
None have disagreed with what I wrote. I dont know where
the support for the government is coming from. I suspect it is
from those that are unaware of the facts. The government is playing
on that, but they cant play on it forever.
How will this impact on Phillips and his family?
He is a tough country boy who will get on with his life. I
dont know what career he will take up but knowing the man
he will be successful. Its hard when youre in a country
town. He will probably have to leave for work. The initial advice
he received was to resign quietly along the lines if you
resign you will have a better chance of getting a job elsewhere.
This came from the union?
Yes.
Do you think this was good advice?
No, I would never resign. I can understand that he was worried
about the future and maybe getting a job elsewhere. But you never
go quietly.
In the 1970s the union organised campaigns to defend victimised
teachers.
Yes, I was part of that. Were not as militant
as we used to be. There is a lot of wheeling and dealing between
unions and government now.
Why do you think the government has pressed so hard in this
case?
It is typical of politicians. They cannot admit to a mistake.
The original bill would have exempted Phillips. But the Labor
Party bowed to the opposition and even more so to the Anglican
and Catholic churches. I find all this amazing. The vast majority
of people support Andrew. He declared his record twice, as well
as in Western Australia and I think in New South Wales. They were
all happy for him to come into teaching. There is huge public
support for him, yet there is no right to appeal against this
retrospective legislation.
How do you think this impacts on education generally?
You dont know where this will finish. Could it later
apply to drink driving? If you are found guilty of such an offence
perhaps the government will move against you. It worries me. Who
would want to go into the education profession? Young people will
say, We will do something else. The government can
just move the goal posts whenever it likes.
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |