Disclaimer: This article contains descriptions of behaviour that some readers may find distressing.  

On 21 May 2025, a 30-year-old woman allegedly verbally harassed staff at Murgon State School, a school in the rural town of Murgon, Queensland, before physically attacking the principal. The incident prompted immediate police involvement, with the woman now facing common assault charges.

The Murgon incident serves as a reminder that schools can be exposed to behaviour from parents and guardians that present a safety risk to students and staff. The Act provides a number of powers for State and non-State schools to manage these risks. Effective use of these powers relies on a clear understanding, implementing them appropriately, and maintaining the documentation necessary to support their effective use. 

School leaders should be familiar with the power to exclude persons from school property. The power is significant and should inform responses to identified risks.

The Act provides exclusion powers designed to match the response to the level of risk posed. These powers create a graduated system from removal from the school for 24 hours to exclusions from all State and non-State schools for up to a year. 

Each level is summarised below, outlining the authority, duration, grounds and penalties involved. This framework supports school leaders in responding proportionately to the risks posed by individuals on school premises. 

Trespassing (section 334)
Any person without lawful authority or reasonable excuse being on school premises commits an offence. This fundamental power applies immediately when a school withdraws permission for someone to be on site.

Wilful disturbance (section 333)
Prohibited conduct includes:

• Wilfully disturbing the good order or management of the school; and

• insulting staff members in the presence of students.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units  

Authority: Principal (oral direction)

Grounds: Reasonable suspicion that a person:

• Has committed or is about to commit an offence at the premises;

• has used or is about to use threatening, abusive or insulting language;

• has engaged in or is about to engage in threatening or violent behaviour;

• has disrupted or is about to disrupt good order; or

• does not have a good and lawful reason to be at the premises.

Maximum penalty for non-compliance: 20 penalty units  

Authority: Principal (written direction)
Duration: Up to 30 days

Purpose: Directions about conduct or movement when necessary for safety, property protection, good order, or proper management.

Maximum penalty for non-compliance: 20 penalty units

Principals can require individuals to provide their name and residential address when proposing to give directions, and may require evidence if false information is suspected (sections 336 & 344).

Maximum penalty for non-compliance: 10 penalty units  

Authority: Principal (written direction)
Duration: Up to 60 days

Grounds: When reasonably satisfied the person is likely to:

• Cause physical harm or apprehension of physical harm;

• damage premises or property; or

• disrupt good order or management.

Maximum penalty for non-compliance: 30 penalty units 

Authority:

1. State schools: Chief Executive.

2. Non-State schools: Governing body or nominee.

Duration: More than 60 days, up to 1 year

Grounds: Same as Level 4 exclusion, but for more serious ongoing risks.

Maximum penalty for non-compliance: 40 penalty units  

Authority: QCAT (on application by Chief Executive)
Duration: Up to 1 year

Scope:

1. All State institutions (section 353).

2. All State and non-State schools (section 352).

Standard: Person poses an unacceptable risk to the safety or wellbeing of school communities generally.

Maximum penalty: 40 penalty units or 1 year imprisonment

School leaders should approach these restrictions carefully, but with a degree of confidence. Where the risk is evidence of real risk, regulators will support prohibitions and exclusion decisions. Two Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) cases demonstrate how these exclusion powers work in practice, particularly for the most serious system-wide exclusions.  

This case involved a parent who engaged in violent and threatening behaviour at Bentley Park College over several months in 2012. As a result of a pattern of escalating behaviour, the school appropriately applied the graduated system outlined in the Act:

1. 24-hour immediate removal direction (section 339).

2. 30-day behavioural direction (section 337).

3. Two separate 60-day exclusion directions (section 340).

4. Application to QCAT for extended exclusion when shorter measures failed

QCAT granted a one-year exclusion order, finding the parent had caused physical harm, created fear among students and staff, and disrupted school management. The Tribunal noted her criminal conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm and the magistrate's comments about her "anger management problem" and history of assault convictions.  

This case involved a violent assault by a father on the Deputy Principal at Mackay North State High School in 2010. The school appropriately applied the graduated system outlined in the Act and, as a result, QCAT granted a one-year exclusion order and awarded $5,000 in costs against the father. QCAT emphasised the public interest in protecting school staff and ensuring they can perform their duties without fear of parental violence.

Schools face unique challenges, managing students, parents, carers, guardians and community members, all of which can pose risks to the physical and psychological safety of students and staff.

The recent example from Murgon highlights an extreme instance of parent conduct, which posed an unacceptable risk to the safety of staff and students. Where data indicates that the impact of unreasonable families is real for school staff, exclusion powers should form part of any leadership team's consideration of a reasonable response to risk, in discharge of their statutory obligations in respect of safety. Appropriate steps for a school to take in such circumstances may include:

• Contacting police if there is immediate danger;

• documenting all incidents with dates, times, witnesses and specific behaviours;

• implementing appropriate exclusion measures under the powers conferred by the Act if they are concerned about the safety of staff or students posed by a community member;

• seeking legal advice when considering longer-term exclusions, as the Act provides specific requirements for the way the direction is to be drafted and who it is to be delivered by; and 

• ensuring all staff understand the protocols and their role in maintaining safety.

It is important to ensure that the exercise of risk management strategies, including exclusion, is managed in a reasonable way. Schools should be recording risk assessments if they consider a person's conduct poses a risk in the school environment. Records should be kept of attempts to redirect problem behaviour, of warnings, and of the evidence informing concerns regarding conduct. Reasonable evidence and records will put any school leader in a good position to exercise exclusion powers as a means of managing and responding to risk.

If you need guidance or support in applying these strategies, please contact our Employment & Safety team to discuss your specific situation.