School leadership today comes with legal pressure that simply didn’t exist a decade ago. A single complaint about bullying, a safety lapse on a school camp, or a poorly handled staff matter can now escalate into media coverage, regulatory action or a lawsuit.
Principals don’t need to be lawyers, but they do need to know where the biggest risks are and how quickly things can go wrong if policies aren’t followed. But understanding the legal landscape isn’t about fear – it’s about protecting students, supporting staff and keeping the school out of avoidable trouble.
Kate Walawski is Principal – Workplace Relations, Employment and Safety at Cullen Macleod, was a teacher long before she switched careers and dived into employment and safety law full-time. Since then, she’s worked closely with managers, businesses and school leaders to help them navigate Australia’s constantly shifting legal landscape.
Whether it’s workplace disputes, safety obligations or compliance headaches, Walawski’s job is to minimise risk and keep organisations on the right side of the law.
Below, The Educator speaks to Walawski about the top legal risks that Australian school principals should be aware of today and heading into 2026, and some helpful legal resources that can assist them in navigating and managing these risks.
TE: Can you share with our readers what made you decide to leave the teaching profession and dive into the world of employment and safety law?
For ten years I stood in front of classrooms, believing wholeheartedly that education could change lives. But during the early 2000s, as mandatory reporting was being introduced in WA, I began to see the profession through a sharper lens. I was also researching the prevalence of bullying in Perth’s independent schools – not in the playground, but in the staffroom. What I uncovered unsettled me. I realised that the greatest risks to teacher wellbeing were often embedded within the workplace culture itself. At the same time, I was entrusted with leading 89 girls on a music tour to Europe. The weight of that responsibility made me acutely aware of the scale of our duty of care obligations. Every decision carried risk, and those risks were not theoretical – they were real, human, and sometimes overwhelming. I loved teaching; but I also knew that the system needed stronger frameworks to protect the people within it: the staff, the students, and the leaders who shoulder the heaviest responsibilities. That realisation drew me to the law. Becoming an employment and safety lawyer allowed me to marry my love of education with a profession where I could influence change. Today, I work with organisations, including schools, to navigate an increasingly complex legal landscape, to build safer workplaces, and to support the people who dedicate their lives to learning. It’s my way of giving back to a sector that shaped me, while helping ensure that others are better protected than I once felt.
TE: Drawing from what you’ve learned through the course of your work, and the conversations you’ve had over the past 12 months or so, what do you consider to be the top legal risks for Australian K-12 schools now and heading into 2026, and what are some ways in which principals can navigate and respond to/mitigate these risks?
Australian schools are entering 2026 amid unprecedented legal complexity. Child safety reforms, privacy changes, online safety regulation and increasing WHS obligations are reshaping the expectations placed on principals and governing bodies. Child safety remains the highest-risk area. New Child Safe Standards and reportable conduct schemes demand stronger recruitment practices, clearer escalation pathways and meticulous record-keeping. Principals should champion consistent implementation, tighten recruitment practices and ensure governance-level oversight.
Online safety will shift significantly with under-16 social media restrictions and rising cyberbullying risk. Schools must review their digital ecosystem, update ICT and enrolment policies, and educate parents and students on safe, compliant use. Privacy and EdTech present growing exposure as reforms tighten protections for children’s data. Principals should audit all digital tools, modernise consent and privacy documentation, and prepare robust breach-response plans. Staff wellbeing and psychosocial hazards are now core WHS duties. Workload pressures, bullying, and occupational violence require structured risk assessments, early intervention and practical controls. Finally, parent conduct and complaints continue to escalate. Clear behavioural expectations, consistent procedures and strong communication are essential. Proactive governance, disciplined documentation and targeted capability-building will enable principals to navigate these risks confidently. Principals who lead decisively now will not only reduce legal exposure but also strengthen safety, culture and community trust.
TE: When we last spoke in 2017, the High Court decision of Deal v Kodakkathanath had determined that schools must do “all that is reasonably practicable” to ensure that teachers perform each and every task in the safest way possible. Looking at Australia’s K-12 education landscape in 2025, how would you describe the progress (or lack thereof) that has been made in this critical area since this ruling was handed down?
In 2017, Deal v Kodakkathanath reaffirmed that schools must do all that is reasonably practicable to ensure teachers perform their duties safely. Eight years on, I’m not convinced we have made the progress we hoped for – not because of inertia, but because the safety landscape itself has shifted beneath our feet.
The sector’s focus has moved from predominantly physical safety to the far more complex terrain of psychological health and safety. Many schools are only now beginning to grapple with the reality that psychosocial hazards – workload, conflict, aggression, role ambiguity, poor culture – can cause harm just as serious as any physical risk. The question for principals in 2026 is not whether these hazards exist, but whether their respective school systems to identify and manage the hazards genuinely work.
Principals need to be asking themselves: have we mapped the psychosocial hazards present within your school? Have we conducted a robust risk assessment to understand the severity and likelihood of harm? Are our safety management systems fit-for-purpose in addressing those risks? Are the systems well-implemented, monitored and improved over time?
This cannot be treated as a compliance exercise. It is the foundation of keeping staff psychologically safe.
I am not sure that increased penalties and criminal prosecution will actually create psychologically safer workplaces. What will make a difference is principled, proactive leadership.
So, what can Principals do now? Strengthen their risk management systems, engage deeply with staff about psychosocial hazards, invest in early intervention, and build psychological healthy and safety into every layer of governance.
TE: I understand you recently presented at the ANZELA National Conference Program. Can you share some insights into what you discussed and why it is so important for Australian K-12 school leaders today?
The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 (Cth) established a right to disconnect for the first time in Australian legislation. The reference to third-party contact in the Right to Disconnect provisions, in my view, hould be read as a direct challenge to the education sector – specifically private schools that fall within the Fair Work jurisdiction. Teachers do not face a simple employer-employee boundary problem; they face a constant barrage of expectations from parents, students, and community actors. The law finally reflects that lived experience which creates a unique compliance challenge for schools. Unlike most industries, third-party access is broad, continuous and culturally embedded. Parent expectations of instant availability persist. Digital learning platforms enable students to message teachers directly. Community groups rely on informal, after-hours communication. The issue is not simply excessive workload — it is a psychosocial hazard that blurs professional boundaries and accelerates staff burnout. Schools must therefore design Right to Disconnect frameworks that extend well beyond internal staff communication. This means setting clear parent communication hours, limiting direct digital access to teachers outside those hours, and ensuring that any genuine emergencies are channelled through a central duty contact rather than a teacher’s personal device. Importantly, the duty of care owed to students does not justify unrestricted access to teachers’ private time. On the contrary, tolerating midnight emails or unmonitored student messaging is a foreseeable risk that schools are legally obliged to control. If a school permits ongoing after-hours intrusion, the liability does not fall on the parent — it falls squarely on the employer. Teachers who refuse unreasonable contact are exercising a lawful workplace right, and adverse action exposes the school to significant industrial risk. The message for principals is clear: third-party contact is now a core governance issue. Policies must shape parent and student expectations, not just staff behaviour. Without decisive action, schools face legal exposure, WorkSafe scrutiny and the erosion of teacher wellbeing and retention.