The latest article in the Courier mail regarding removing Dr. Paul Browning from St. Paul's School due to a toxic clash with the Anglican Church has only raised more questions than answers.
The Courier Mail was told that the school was instructed to stop commercialising the Realms of Thinking (ROT) program because it would jeopardise federal government funding. An email from Bishop Greaves to parents stated that the ASC consulted regulators, the Department of Education, and the Non-State Schools Accreditation Board, who advised that this could jeopardise their funding. Maybe we should see what advice was given?
However, Not-for-profit entities, of which St. Paul's is registered as an NFP charity on the ACNC, can and do create income from Non-Core products. The St. Paul's International School is an income-generating non-core product of the charity. So why was ROT an issue, given that the purpose of commercializing ROT was specifically to pay historical child abuse repayments?
Creating income from non-core products is not unusual for charities, nor does it seem unusual for other schools under the ASC. In fact, St Andrews Anglican School just recently purchased a sports club facility in Peregian Springs for $5.5m in March 2023 and it will be "run on a fee-paying basis for pool and gym for the enjoyment of the broader community, although will at times be solely used for St Andrew's sporting teams" So we can generate income for a school via a community paying sports club but commercializing ROT to pay historical child abuse payments would put government funding at risk????
Why also did the diocese give permission in 2022 that ROT could be commercialised? Surely, they sought advice back in 2022 from the same regulators on commercializing ROT, yet now the advice has changed and is no longer feasible? Why did the advice change? What was the advice given in 2022 and the advice given in 2023?
In 2017, the Royal Commission found St. Paul's failed past students due to inaction against pedophile counsellor Kevin Lynch and pedophile music teacher Gregory Roberty Knight during the 1980s and 1990s. Dr. Browning started at St. Paul's in 2008 and has worked tirelessly on paying compensation for those abuse victims and their families, including establishing a memorial at the school.
The article states that Dr. Browning lodged a whistleblower complaint with the ASC in June. Who was the recipient of this complaint? What was contained in that complaint? A bullying complaint was then lodged against Sherril Butterworth, Executive Director of the ASC. However, the question that does not arise from this information is then why, in August, was Browning told he would potentially get IP for ROT only if he signed an NDA???
Why was the ASC pressing for Dr Browning to sign an NDA?????
One last question from this article is that parents were told via the Courier Mail, not the ASC, that an educational consultant would be stepping in as Headmaster. We've discussed the total lack of respect and transparency the ASC affords to the school body; however, in cases where a headmaster may resign, normally the Deputy Principal or someone from within the school would step into the role of Acting Headmaster, whilst a more permanent solution is found. Instead, the ASC managed to have an "educational consultant" on-site within 5 days of Browning vacating the school premises. Seems an awfully quick turnaround. ROT is one of the key components to the school's academic success and global recognition. One would think utilising key staff already established at the school to temporarily fill in as Acting Headmaster would be more feasible and beneficial, and yet the ASC is paying numerous dollars for an educational consultant to fill this position. Why?