Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2669 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
The fact that your amendment enables an employer to make an application does not relieve the court of the need to know who the aggrieved parties are. Let us take as an example a teacher and a class that have been threatened in a generalised way by malcontent student Y. Malcontent student Y has come to the school and made threats against the teacher and the class. The teacher and the class are concerned about the nature of the threat, are not keen to get involved in restraining orders in the court and go to their employer and want their employer to go to court and make an application on their behalf.
That can now be done by a police officer. Even under Mr Berry's bill, if it passes, it will not be possible for the employer to go to the court and apply for the restraining order without naming the teacher and the students concerned. He has to name the teacher and students. That is the clear advice I have received. Your bill, Mr Berry, does not relieve the court of the obligation to know who it is the order is being made out to protect. You can say to malcontent student Y, "You must not approach Mr X and Mr Z." But in the present circumstances you cannot say that they may not approach a particular place or particular class of people who are not named. You must also name the people who are part of that class or who are found in that place. The order can be made out to the effect of saying, "You may not approach the school when those students are in that class." That is an acceptable order, because the students concerned are named in the order and listed in the order.
At the present time Mr Berry's bill would not have the effect of allowing the students or teacher or whoever was being protected not to be named. If they have to be named, the purpose of the bill is defeated. This is not opposition for opposition's sake. It makes more sense to draft an amendment which has the effect of providing a protection around a place rather than around people, if that is what Mr Berry wants to achieve.
Without naming particular students, a court could order that student Y not come to a school during school hours, say, or not come within a certain distance of sportsfields where students were engaged in sporting activities. That might be an acceptable outcome, but it is not the outcome you achieve with your bill, Mr Berry. I think you need to go back and reconsider your bill. The government is not opposed to the general concept of what Mr Berry is trying to do.
Mr Stefaniak: We are very supportive of it.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Stefaniak indicates that his department has been concerned about this issue for some time. My advice is very clear. Your bill does not obviate the need to name individuals who appear in court and who have to be the subject of court orders. You cannot issue a generalised restraining or protection order. It needs to be specific about who it is protecting. As a result, I think Mr Berry should reconsider the bill, perhaps adjourn the debate and allow the bill to be further considered, with amendments.
MS TUCKER
(4.24): I have been listening to the debate. I think we are all concerned about the fundamental issue here, and I am concerned after hearing Mr Humphries' comments. I will listen to what Mr Berry says, but I would like to know from Mr Humphries what the timeframe is for the review that he has mentioned. Maybe he
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .