Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2667 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

That is the basis on which there ought to be a review of the operation of restraining orders. As I said, that is occurring. The amendments proposed by Mr Berry are predicated on the existence of an aggrieved person on whose behalf an application can be made by that person's employer.

In the context of school violence, Mr Berry has assumed that a teacher would be the aggrieved person. The department of education has indicated that, while teachers may be present when threats are made, the threats may be directed against one or more students or may be generalised threats which are not directed at that teacher, with the result that he or she cannot be an aggrieved person within the meaning of part X of the Magistrates Court Act 1930. The education department has also indicated that in some cases teachers are unwilling to be the aggrieved person.

Mr Berry's amendments do not dispense with the requirement that a teacher must be the aggrieved person, and therefore they do not address teachers' concerns. Contrary to what Mr Berry said when he presented this bill, if a teacher does make an application for a restraining order, he or she is not required to disclose a home address. The school's address is sufficient. Mr Berry said in his presentation speech that he was concerned about teachers having to give a home address which would identify where they might be found by, say, disgruntled students who were wishing to take-

Mr Quinlan: They do not have access to the phone book, of course!

MR HUMPHRIES: Teachers might not be recorded in the phone book.

Mr Quinlan: In that case they are all gone then.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Quinlan, I do not know what your problem is, but I will explain why that point does not hold water, if you care to listen, which you obviously do not. If a teacher is in the phone book, then the problem Mr Berry raised does not arise in any case. Mr Berry was concerned about teachers being identified at their home address. If they have a phone number and an address in the phone book, the issue does not arise, does it?

If on the other hand a teacher is not identified in that way, and there is a concern about the teacher being identified in the course of a proceeding or proceedings in the court, Mr Berry need not be concerned, because there is not a requirement of a person making an application for a restraining order to give a home address. The person may give a school address. A home address would be included only-

Mr Berry: They have to give their name, though. That is the problem.

MR HUMPHRIES: I will come back to that in a moment. I will deal with the question of a home address first. A home address would be included in the application only where the applicant sought to restrain the respondent from approaching or entering that home address. In other words, if the aggrieved student, say, had been coming to the teacher's home and banging on the door or throwing rocks at the windows or whatever, then of course you would need to name the address. Naturally, the student would know the address already. An order in such terms would not be sought unless the respondent already knew the relevant address.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .