When Gunnedah Public School (GPS) received a community concern about a person with public ties to youth programs and controversial online behaviour, the expectation was that the school would at least open a meaningful dialogue. Instead, the Executive Principal (Cathie McMaster) seemed to have responded with a polite dismissal, stating:
“I hope you can understand that GPS may not be the appropriate forum to address them.” – Cathie McMaster, Executive Principal at Gunnedah Public School
This statement (while carefully worded) reveals something deeply troubling about how institutions sometimes treat community-raised safety concerns – especially when it involves Indigenous-led programs or external providers engaged with local youth.
A Dismissive Default?
Let’s be clear, schools are often the frontline of community trust, especially when external facilitators or volunteers are invited to run programs that influence young minds.
So when that trust is questioned – such as through allegations of inappropriate online behaviour or intimidation by someone publicly tied to local youth initiatives —the expectation is not silence or redirection. It’s transparency.
Yet, in this case, the language used by GPS reads more like corporate damage control than genuine student welfare concern. “I appreciate that your concerns are important to you” can be interpreted as belittling… as if the concerns are personal rather than grounded in broader child safety implications.
So, What Is the Appropriate Forum?
If a local public school isn’t the right place to raise red flags about individuals involved in youth programs within that school, where should concerned community members go? The Department of Education? The police? Social media?
That logic creates a bureaucratic maze that discourages whistleblowing and silences community accountability – especially when the individual of concern maintains close personal and professional ties with local Aboriginal organisations, as outlined in the original email sent to the school on 12 May 2025.
This is particularly concerning in regional communities where blurred lines between personal relationships, cultural initiatives and formal school programming are common. A closed-door approach risks allowing inappropriate influences to remain unchecked.
Student Safety Shouldn’t Be Optional
The standard response of “privacy restrictions” is understood and valid in many situations. However, it should not become a shield that stops institutions from taking concerns seriously or investigating them transparently. Schools are bound by child safety frameworks and public trust demands they go further than simply referring the matter elsewhere.
The community doesn’t want confidential records. We want assurance. Has this person been vetted? Are they still working with students? Is there an internal process to assess risk when community members raise serious concerns?
Silence or vague redirection, is not the answer.b
Time to Rethink “Appropriate Forums”
If our schools are not seen as safe spaces for community input, then student protection becomes reactive instead of proactive. Gunnedah Public School missed an opportunity to show leadership.
But instead, it left the community with more questions than answers.
To quote one educator I spoke with after this exchange:
“Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly.” – Mahatma Gandhi
It’s time public schools reframe what the “appropriate forum” really is because when it comes to child safety, there’s no such thing as the wrong place to care.
Discover more from Indigenous News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
