On 21 May 2025, a 30-year-old woman allegedly verbally abused staff at Murgon State School, in rural Queensland, before physically assaulting the principal. Police were called, and the woman now faces a common assault charge.
The incident is a stark reminder that schools can be exposed to conduct that threatens the safety of staff and students. Under Queensland law, both state and non-state schools have clear powers to manage these risks – but those powers must be used carefully and supported by proper documentation.
The Act allows principals to exclude individuals from school grounds where safety is at risk, using a graduated approach. Responses can range from a 24-hour removal to a ban of up to 12 months across all Queensland schools, depending on the severity and persistence of the behaviour.
In her role as Partner within Colin Biggers & Paisley’s Employment & Safety team, Megan Kavanagh helps school leaders, and clients in many other industries, navigate the legal fallout from workplace incidents like these.
Below, The Educator speaks to Kavanagh about identifying early warning signs of escalating parent behaviour, applying exclusion powers proportionately, strengthening documentation to withstand legal scrutiny, and navigating community backlash while prioritising staff safety and student wellbeing.
TE: We often talk about exclusion powers in theory, but principals hesitate to use them until things have already escalated. What early warning signs should leaders pay attention to that indicate it’s time to consider a formal direction before behaviour becomes dangerous?
Data shows that 57.8% of teachers experience parent-led bullying annually, with 13.4% reporting parents engaging in arguments on their child’s behalf. Meanwhile, 83% of teachers have considered leaving the profession due to bullying (Billett et al., 2019). This data underscores the importance of visible and meaningful support for staff.
Early warning signs might include repeated verbal aggression, intimidation, disregard for boundaries, and escalation despite informal interventions. This can include malicious gossip about teachers, other families, or students—online or in person—as well as an increase in demanding emails, calls, and other communications.
Such conduct, especially when combined with a lack of insight or remorse once the parent is confronted with the impact of their behaviour, may signal escalating conduct that poses an unmanaged safety risk. Failing to address and document conduct as it arises may make it more difficult to respond after escalation.
TE: The Act sets out a graduated ladder of responses, from a 24-hour removal to a one-year ban across all Queensland schools. In practice, how should a principal decide which rung of that ladder is proportionate, especially when the parent’s behaviour sits in a grey zone?
The Act’s graduated responses, from short-term removal to a one-year ban, require principals to assess both the severity of the conduct and the likelihood of recurrence. Documentation around these assessments, and evidence of the conduct itself, is critical.
In a recent decision, ACF v Chief Executive, Department of Education [2025] QCAT 443 (ACF), the tribunal clarified that proportionality under the Act is not about comparing penalties across cases, but about assessing the risk of recurrence and the parent’s responsiveness to prior warnings.
Over nearly two years, ACF engaged in a series of confrontational and aggressive behaviours on or near school grounds. As a result, the Department of Education issued a direction under section 341 of the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld), prohibiting ACF from entering school premises for one year. ACF sought review of the decision in QCAT, arguing the ban was excessive and disproportionate.
The ban was upheld. The decision provides several key lessons:
If a parent shows no insight or continues to justify their behaviour after mediation or warnings, a stronger response is warranted.
In “grey zone” cases, principals should consider the cumulative impact on school safety and whether lesser measures have failed.
Ultimately, the primary test is the likelihood of future harm, not just past conduct.
Communicating expectations in writing is critical. If a school leader cannot demonstrate the regularity of conduct, how expectations were set, and how a parent refused to comply, it becomes difficult to rely on exclusion powers.
TE: When a parent’s conduct is becoming increasingly hostile, schools are advised to keep detailed records. From a legal standpoint, what does “good documentation” actually look like, and what kinds of gaps in record-keeping weaken a school’s position at QCAT?
Good documentation is contemporaneous, objective, and recoverable. It should record dates, times, direct quotes, witnesses, and the impact on staff or students.
Importantly, schools should not only keep internal records, but also communicate expectations to parents and carers, clearly setting standards and consequences. Failure to do so may weaken reliance on exclusion powers.
The ACF case demonstrates that clear records of prior warnings and intermediary steps are critical to upholding exclusion decisions. Schools should ensure all incidents, including those resolved informally, are logged.
TE: Many principals worry about community backlash when excluding a parent, particularly in small or rural towns. What guidance do you give school leaders about balancing legal obligations, staff safety, and politically delicate local relationships?
Schools are significant partners in their communities. Excluding a community member can have flow-on effects for family members, students, and others.
However, where a parent’s behaviour is objectively unsafe, school leaders will generally have community support. Even in close-knit communities, parents ultimately want their children to be safe at school. Decisions taken to ensure safety are often recognised as necessary and appropriate.
That said, it is important to recognise the impact on the student. If a family member is excluded, the student may feel embarrassed or experience increased pressure at home. Schools should provide reassurance and support, making it clear the student remains welcome, valued, and supported.
Ultimately, the law prioritises the safety and wellbeing of staff and students. The rights of the child and school community outweigh individual parental rights when safety is at risk. Transparent communication, consistent policy application, and engagement with the broader school community can help mitigate backlash.