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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 299 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

However, in saying that, we are not open-ended or uncritical in out support of the approach adopted. In relation to this particular bill, I wrote to a range of stakeholders seeking their views on the necessity for the bill and on the content of the bill. I have to say that there was outright opposition to the bill from some sectors of the legal profession and support from other stakeholders that I consulted.

No-one, however, was able to point to a particular incident involving a weapon or sufficient violence to warrant the introduction of a bill limiting access by the public to the courts. The courts do not keep specific records of such incidents, the court does not keep records of charges relating to such incidents, and this raises the question of why the bill is necessary, and what actually prompted the government's determination to proceed with legislation of this sort.

In correspondence with me, the Bar Association of the ACT stated that it is unaware of any history of security problems in ACT courts-and, of course, its members use the courts on a daily basis representing a wide variety of litigants. The Bar Association regards the right of the public to enter the courts as fundamental to a free society and to the operation of our system of justice. In his letter to me, the President, Mr Purnell, said:

That is a sentiment that I accept and endorse. As responsible legislators, we need to take account of the worst case scenario that is possible under any legislation we pass. It is all very well to say that this bill will not affect the public's right to enter the courts and that we can have faith in the good sense of security officers. But under this bill a security officer who is not answerable to either the Chief Justice or the Chief Magistrate would be entitled to find that what the Bar Association says is a good reason for being in court is insufficient. The public could be barred from entering the court, or even the court building.

He said that it is of great concern-I am not sure whether these are his exact words but this was his sentiment expressed in his letter-that security officers may end up exercising their powers most often in relation to the unkempt, the poor and ill-educated, who unfortunately are most often involved, or accompanying those involved, in court processes.

As part of my consideration of the bill, I wrote to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General, in his response, justified the bill by saying, amongst other things, that the legal authority for actions by security staff is uncertain and open to challenge. Well, it would be a very sad day when actions by security staff are not open to challenge. The Attorney went on to talk about incidents that occurred in 1993 and later during other high profile criminal trials. All of those trials were highly publicised and, with the exception of the Eastman matter, there were no reports of breaches of the peace, violent incidents or security incidents that demanded the introduction of this bill. Certainly there were concerns and rumours and threats, but there always are in the heated environment of trials of serious criminal charges.

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