Ben O'Shea: Forcing kids to be besties with bullies sends appalling message
The West Australian education editor Bethany Hiatt had that scoop this week, based on a submission to the Federal Government's anti-bullying review by the WA Council of State School Organisations.
WACSSO represents public school P&Cs, and its submission raised concerns that some schools either use policies that don't work or turn a blind eye to bullying altogether.
Insisting victims of bullying not only let bygones be bygones, but actually try to establish a friendship with their tormentors is effectively doing both of those things simultaneously.
National statistics show around one in four students in Years 4 to 9 have reported being bullied at least every few weeks, while one in five reported experiencing online bullying every 12 months.
The prevalence and well-documented physical and psychological harm done by this scourge on our children motivated Federal Education Minister Jason Clare to announce a review into school bullying in February.
The hope is the review will create a national framework that state education ministers can then implement to address the issue.
But we shouldn't need to wait for that to happen to stop schools from forcing victims to become besties with bullies.
Not only does it have the potential to re-traumatise victims, it diminishes the seriousness of the bully's behaviour and may even give the impression that there are no consequences for said behaviour.
And for what? So the school can avoid the formal process it must undertake if a bullying allegation is raised by a student?
Or to avoid a difficult conversation with a parent of a bully, who, based on scientific probability, is likely to also be unpleasant.
Either way, this is entirely about benefiting the school and does nothing to help the victim.
The victim is essentially told to grin and bear it, as if they're the ones in the wrong.
It's easy to see how not being believed or taken seriously by those in positions of power and responsibility could do more damage in the long run than the bullying itself.
Back in the day, you might have told a kid that the best way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them – sock 'em in the chin to show you won't be pushed around.
It's patently terrible advice, but arguably more effective than being forced to befriend a bully.
Here's an idea – why don't we not do either of those things, and schools just get with the times and recognise bullying is not about conflict resolution but rather an abusive power dynamic.
Schools have rules and protocols for stamping it out, so just enforce it to make it clear that the oft-used 'zero tolerance' for bullying isn't just empty rhetoric.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
8 hours ago
- ABC News
How will SA's algal bloom funding be spent
The Federal Government has pledged $14 million to assist the SA government deal with devastating effects of the algal bloom along its coastline. The state government has since announced they will match that - promising an additional $14 million to assist affected fishers and for scientific research, monitoring, and communications. But where will the money be spent and when could we see an end in sight to the marine damage as dead fish, sharks, and rays continue to wash up on parts of the South Australia coastline.
7NEWS
9 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Virginia Giuffre: Epstein's most prominent Aussie accuser left her children four houses and a small fortune
Sex-trafficking survivor Virginia Giuffre died without a valid will, despite having amassed a small fortune which included civil lawsuit settlements and a multi-million dollar property portfolio in Australia. The Nightly can reveal that an application has been made to the Supreme Court of WA for Letters of Administration because the high-profile sexual abuse campaigner had not left a valid will or appointed an executor of her estate. The probate application is currently in the 'requisition' stage, which is where the court Registrar writes to the applicant to advise them of any problems with the application and tell them what they must do to remedy the issues. The West Australian has previously revealed that in early June, Giuffre's sons – Christian and Noah – had published a public notice in the WA Government Gazette calling for creditors. Giuffre, 41, is believed to have died from suicide at a rural property in Western Australia on April 25. Giuffre's step-brother Sky, who was visiting from the United States, reportedly found her unresponsive and performed CPR before emergency services arrived. At the time, WA Police said its major crime squad detectives were investigating the death but that it appeared non-suspicious. This week, the WA Coroner's office told The Nightly that Giuffre's death had since been referred to the Coroner's Court. 'The Court is investigating the circumstances surrounding Ms Giuffre's death,' a spokeswoman said on Wednesday. 'The Court does not make public those investigations but will inform the senior next of kin of those investigations.' Giuffre, who had recently reverted to her maiden name of Roberts, was one of the most prominent accusers of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The mother-of-three successfully sued Epstein in 2015, alleging that he and convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell, had sex-trafficked her when she was just 16 years old in 2000. She also accused Prince Andrew of sexually assaulting her when she was 17. The Duke, who repeatedly denied the claims, paid Giuffre an estimated £7.3million ($15 million) in an out-of-court settlement in February 2022 without accepting any liability. The fierce advocate for abuse victims is believed to have amassed considerable wealth in recent years. Giuffre and her husband had paid cash for four properties in WA before they split. The couple had bought three properties, all within a few kilometres of each other, in Perth's northern suburbs. In mid-2020, they purchased a palatial six-bedroom home with stunning ocean views in the beachside suburb of Ocean Reef for $1.9 million. In August 2022 the couple purchased, in their company name, a six-bedroom house in Heathridge for $865,000. In October 2022 they paid $895,000 for a five-bedroom property in the nearby suburb of Connolly. And in July 2023, the couple paid $1.2 million for a 16.48ha rural retreat at Neergabby, about an hour north of Perth. The Neergabby property had been re-listed for sale in August, September and October 2022, which indicates the couple may have briefly tried to sell it – for the same price – before taking it off the market. Property records show all four of the couple's properties are 'owner-occupied' and mortgage-free. Following her marriage breakdown, the American-born activist moved into the couple's farmhouse at Neergabby, where she later died. This comes as President Donald Trump struggled on Wednesday to contain the fallout from his administration's decision not to release the Epstein files, as Republicans in the House went home for August instead of grappling with the issue and a Florida court declined to release grand jury testimony from the case. And a new report in the Wall Street Journal describes how Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy informed the President in May that his name appeared 'multiple times' in the files, along with those of 'many people' who socialised with Epstein. If you or someone you know needs help, contact 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732). Lifeline: 13 11 14. Beyond Blue: 1300 22 4636.
News.com.au
9 hours ago
- News.com.au
Australian cattle industry reacts to US beef imports relaxation
Australian beef leaders believe that the future of our $75 billion industry depends on the federal government's decision to relax import laws on US beef being a correct choice. Cattle Australia has called for an independent review into the bombshell decision, announced on Thursday, saying there was 'simply too much at stake' for the nation's biosecurity. Industry figures were 'unsurprised' at the call and don't expect much demand for American beef, with one likening it to 'selling ice to the Eskimos'. The decision came after a '10-year process' and was not directly linked to ongoing tariff negotiations with the US, despite Donald Trump criticising the beef trade imbalance between the two nations, the government said. US beef has been allowed into Australia since 2019 but now cattle born in Canada and Mexico will also be available for import after a biosecurity assessment. Cattle Australia chief Will Evans told ABC radio on Thursday the body had to trust the government's process, stressing bureaucrats 'made the assessment themselves'. 'When you have a $75 billion industry relying on them not making this mistake, I am sure they have been cautious in their decision-making,' he said. But Mr Evans in a statement also said it was 'a little disappointing' the government did not 'provide industry with the full details' before making the announcement. Later on Thursday afternoon, Cattle Australia called for an independent scientific panel to review the government's decision. 'While we have been given assurances … we believe an independent scientific assessment is a sensible and prudent way forward. This must occur before imports commence,' he said. 'There is simply too much at stake when it comes to Australia's world-leading biosecurity status not to get a second opinion. 'Given the Minister's confidence she should have no issue appointing an independent panel to take the highest level of precaution in protecting the Australian beef industry.' Mr Evans earlier said Australia's beef industry was self-sufficient and any imports of US beef were 'unlikely to have any effect on the market', stressing that the US 'cannot currently meet its own needs, with Australia exporting almost 400,000 tonnes of beef to the US in 2024'. In fact, US beef prices have been hitting record levels domestically with a nine per cent growth since January alone. Ground beef is retailing at about US$9 for one pound (450g). Despite the Australian government's protestations otherwise, the Trump administration has heralded the move as a 'major trade breakthrough' gained through the President's tariff agenda. In a statement titled 'Make Agriculture Great Again Trade Wins: President Trump Secures Greater Ag Market Access to Australia for American Beef', US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins congratulated Mr Trump. 'This is yet another example of the kind of market access the president negotiates to bring America into a new golden age of prosperity, with American agriculture leading the way,' she said. James Jackson, a beef and cattle farmer and ex-president of NSW Farmers, told he 'can't think of a reason' why Australian businesses would import more expensive US beef. 'There may be sort of bespoke restaurants, you know, guaranteed American (beef) … Texan steak or something like that,' he said. 'People may do it, but I seriously doubt it. 'The main reason there wasn't beef coming into Australia was that the economics of it weren't there, and the Americans didn't tidy up their traceability enough.' Previously, concerns over mad cow disease prevented the import of beef products from cows born in Canada and Mexico – which were regularly brought into US supply chains. The US now says it can trace all cattle to the farm and through the supply chain, after its farmers had long resisted more stringent regulations. Mr Jackson said the timing of the announcement was a 'bit suspicious' when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was hoping to negotiate on aluminium tariffs with the US, but did not believe there would have been any compromise on biosecurity. Tammi Jonas from the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance also said the timeline made it appear the government was 'kowtowing to Trump' but added she did not foresee much impact. 'I suspect that it's more about filling seasonal gaps,' she said. 'So if we have massive drought here you'll see an increase in imports from the US, I would imagine. 'But the only ones who stand to benefit from this, of course, are the major processors, the multinationals.' Agriculture Minister Julie Collins told reporters in Canberra on Thursday the decision was 'the culmination of what has been a 10-year process'. 'The US has been able to bring beef into Australia since 2019. In 2020 they asked (for) expanded access. 'This process now is at conclusion and has taken around five years to conclude, purely based on science and a rigorous assessment by my department.' She said the risk assessment was conducted by experts and 'Australia's biosecurity system is world renowned for a reason'. Mr Trump was also US President in 2020, near the end of his first term after winning the 2016 election. Nationals Leader David Littleproud said on Thursday afternoon he was 'gobsmacked' at the move and suggested there was a 'real risk' to health and biosecurity. 'It's a huge call from our Federal Government to come out with something like this,' he said. 'And I guess it exposes us, I think it exposes us immensely. It's of immense concern. 'I don't know how what's changed apart from probably some political pressure from the US?' Tim Ryan, chief of the Australian Meat Industry Council, said the move was 'not necessarily a surprise' and the council had been engaged in the process for several years. 'We raised previous concerns with what was on the table. The assurances we gain from the government as part of this decision have met those concerns that we previously raised,' he said. But Mr Ryan said he the commercial drivers of US beef arriving in Australia were 'pretty limited'. 'We're not expecting really any beef to arrive in Australia from the United States,' he said. 'At the end of the day, Australia produces the best beef in the world. We're an efficient producer of product like that. It's a bit like selling ice to the eskimos, but that said, we still need to follow the rules of trade. 'We rely on reciprocal treatment when we send our products all around the world, us accepting the United States' beef along the same terms is really a win for rules.'
