Half of all school principals at risk of serious mental health issues
One in two principals risk serious mental health concerns amid escalating threats, violence and staff shortages in the sector, new research shows.
ACU’s annual Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Survey 2022, released today, found 47.8% of school leaders had triggered “red flag” alerts, which occur when principals are at risk of self-harm, occupational health problems or serious impact on their quality of life including burnout and stress. The emails alert principals to contact employee support services.
It was an 18.7 percentage point jump on the alerts compared with the previous year.
The risk was highest among special school principals, with 56.3% triggering red flag emails in 2022. Public schools followed at 51.8%, compared with 35.3% at Catholic schools and 27.7% of independent school counterparts. The percentages were higher for female principals across all sectors.
Aggressive behaviours, cyberbullying and threats towards principals have also dramatically increased in the past year. Forty-four per cent of principals have been subjected to physical violence – the highest figure recorded since the survey began in 2011.
ACU investigator and former principal Dr Paul Kidson said school leaders were now 11 times more at risk of experiencing physical violence in their workplace than the general population.
Our research shows abuse and intimidation towards principals and the associated health risks suffered by school leaders continues to grow and it must stop. Such a significant shift in red flag warnings in a short space of time suggests the situation is more serious than first thought. For the past 12 years we have looked at trends and this year they are stark – the scale and the rate has intensified, and we are seeing a severe escalation in stress levels.
Principals in the ACT triggered the most alerts at 58.5% followed by the Northern Territory (57.4), New South Wales (55.7) and Western Australia (52.2).
Previous research from the ACU found heavy workloads and teacher shortages were driving principals to resignation and early retirement. The number wanting to quit or retire early has tripled in one year.
Co-lead investigator Prof Herb Marsh said the sector was at a “tipping point”.
There is an urgency in our call for action as the time to redress these concerns diminishes. We may see a mass exodus from the profession, and the implication for Australian education would be devastating.”
The report made 15 recommendations including introducing wellbeing policies within performance frameworks and for the government to fast-track the elimination of “low-value tasks” as suggested by the Productivity Commission.
Crossbencher Sophie Scamps moves amendments to safeguard mechanism
The government’s safeguards mechanism legislation will pass the house with no issue (the government has the numbers there) but that doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of people who want to speak to the bill and/or make changes to it. Including the crossbench. Dr Sophie Scamps is out early this morning with the amendments she would like to see:
My amendments will require all new, expanded, or extended fossil fuel facilities to have net zero carbon emissions at commencement, and for the life of the facility. In this scenario:
A new gas project would be required to enter the safeguard mechanism at net zero, and stay there for its operational life.
A coalmine seeking to expand the area of its mining operations would need to ensure the expanded area operates carbon neutrally and remain that way for its operational life.
A company seeking to extend the life of a coal seam gas project would need to ensure the project is net zero from the day of the project’s extension and stay there for its operational life.
In addition, I am also moving amendments that seek to guarantee the integrity of climate and carbon market related bodies such as the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Regulator, by guaranteeing the independence of appointments to those bodies.
Crean disputes the 'inevitability of there being a war' with China
Simon Crean does believe that Paul Keating raised some important questions though, which he says was lost in the “personality attacks”.
I think that people want to be ensured that our security is in the best possible hands, and that there’s openness about the basis upon which we go forward.
I think that there is concern about the China under the leadership of President Xi [Jinping], but that doesn’t mean the inevitability of a war. And I find that surprising, that too often those concerns are then extrapolated to the inevitability of there being a war. When I think history in terms of China’s track record suggests otherwise.
… I think that China as a growing power is obviously extending. It’s not just economic strength, its military strength, it sees itself as an important power in the region.
But to suggest that it’s going to invade anyone, I think, is just a ridiculous step forward. And yet … that seems to be the premise on which subsequent questions are posed.
Aukus deal does not mean Australia must follow US into war: Simon Crean
So is the former Labor leader concerned with the Aukus deal?
He tells Patricia Karvelas he isn’t. Asked if he thinks the agreement would make it harder for Australia to say no to following the US into war, Crean says:
I don’t believe that it does. As I say, I think it comes back to the strength of leadership. The test of a partnership, the test of an alliance is not just following blindly. It is challenging, challenging within it brings you to the party to the table as an equal partner.
And that’s how we should exercise our position known on the best evidence.
This week is the 20th anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq.
Simon Crean, the Labor leader at the time, was against Australia joining from the beginning and he played a high political price, but history judged him correctly.
Foreign minister announces targeted sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities
Penny Wong has kicked off the week with an announcement the government is imposing Magnitsky-style targeted financial sanctions and travel bans “on a further 14 individuals and targeted financial sanctions on 14 Iranian entities responsible for egregious human rights abuses and violations in Iran”.
From the release:
Among those subject to Magnitsky-style human rights sanctions are four members of the Morality Police who were responsible for the arrest, detention and ill-treatment of Mahsa ‘Jina’ Amini.
Sanctioned targets also include senior law enforcement, political and military figures, including within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, involved in the violent crackdown on protests following the death of Ms Amini and the continued oppression of the people of Iran.
Australia is also joining partners to impose additional targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on 13 Iranian individuals and targeted financial sanctions on one entity involved in the production and supply of drones to Russia.
Iranian-made drones have been used by Russia to target Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure.
This listing demonstrates that there will be consequences for those who provide material support to Russia.
Australia stands with the people of Iran and with the people of Ukraine.
Government examining welfare and jobseeker payment rates, Gallagher says
Katy Gallagher says the government is “looking at payments” when she is asked about Sam Mostyn’s request that single parents remain on the single parent payment when their child turns eight (under changes made by the Gillard government, parents are moved on to the jobseeker payment, with mutual obligations when their child turns eight).
It seems to be the one part of the interview where Gallagher moves out of the holding pattern. She doesn’t say yes, but she does make a point that payments are being examined by the government ahead of the budget.
That’s also because of the economics inclusion committee that David Pocock won as a concession as part of previous negotiations – it is going to give recommendations on Australia’s welfare payments and where they should be.
The government doesn’t have to accept the recommendations, which is one of the biggest criticisms of the committee (I think everyone knows the payments need to be increased) but it will draw more of a spotlight on just how far behind social security payments like jobseeker are from a livable allowance.
Finance minister won’t confirm government’s stance on minimum wage increase in FWC submission
There is then a back-and-forth over whether the government supports the union position on raising the minimum wage now that the Fair Work Commission is looking at it again, so workers don’t go backwards given inflation.
At the election, Anthony Albanese “absolutely” supported a cost-of-living increase to the minimum wage.
Almost a year on, Katy Gallagher is not as absolute.
We support wage increases, particularly for low-income workers. You’ve seen that since the beginning of this government. You won’t see that change. We will continue to argue for that. But the final submission needs to be finalised, and go through our processes.
As for a figure? She will leave that to the unions. The government won’t be putting a number on it (although they didn’t put a number on it officially last time either, at least in the submission).
Greens and Labor to find compromise on safeguards mechanism
The Greens want no new coal or gas projects in order to pass the safeguards mechanism. The government is not prepared to go that far. And so, what will the government compromise on?
Speaking to ABC radio RN Breakfast, the finance minister, Katy Gallagher, doesn’t say – but she does say that both parties want to see action. And so the thought is the Greens will compromise on no coal and gas and the government gives elsewhere.
We want this legislation through, it’s critical to meeting our 43% reductions target. It’s the policy that exists now. It’s about making that more effective. And the Greens obviously want, you know, some other additional commitments. And we’ll we’ll work through that over the fortnight.
Welcome back to parliament where it’s getting to the nub end of business ahead of the budget.
The government is focusing on getting the referendum machinery and safeguards mechanism legislation through the parliament, but neither is an easy ask.
Then there’s also the housing figure fund and more debate over superannuation tax concessions and the Aukus deal – it’s going to be an exhausting fortnight. There’s not too many sitting days left before the government switches to budget mode so the mood is a little tense, and that’s before you add in all the politics of the rising cost of power in what’s already a pretty tense rising cost of living situation. Plus, there’s the Aston byelection creeping up, which just adds a whole other level of performative outrage to almost every interaction.
Anthony Albanese is back in Canberra after his India and US trip and Peter Dutton is rearing to go, so it’s going to be exhausting for all of us.
As always, you’ll have the Canberra team with you to take you through the day and me, Amy Remeikis, on the blog.
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion