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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 309 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

believes, on reasonable grounds again, that it is necessary in the interests of court security.

The government does not anticipate establishing a permanent or a substantial security presence at court. However, this legislation will ensure that appropriate measures can be taken as and when they are needed. We would urge members to support the bill in the interests of protecting court users and the integrity of the justice system. It is too late if we say, "Look, it's not needed; we haven't had anything too serious there." That is debatable in its own right, and I hearken back to a few instances I think my colleague Mr Humphries mentioned in the tabling speech. It is too late if something happens, someone gets killed in there because the security situation is unclear. It is too late if someone gets seriously injured because the proper powers are not there. I would urge members to bear that in mind.

The government has carefully considered the comments of the scrutiny of bills committee and it has developed amendments to address the committee's concerns with some clauses-clause 5, 8 and 17.

Government amendments 1 and 2, which members should have now, both affect clause 5. Amendment 1 addresses the concern that the words in subclause 5 (1)(b) are ambiguous. Amendment 2 has been recommended by the Parliamentary Counsel and will omit a reference to an act that is to be repealed. The committee made a suggestion, which the government takes up in amendment 3, to amend clause 8. It ensures that a person who does not want to state his or her name, address or reason for attending court will actually have the option of leaving court instead of complying with the security officer's request.

Amendment 4 was one suggested by VOCAL, and that will ensure that, where there is no available security officer of the same sex as the person to be searched, the security officer requesting the search can ask only a member of the court staff of the relevant sex to conduct that search. As presently drafted, any person of the relevant sex can be asked to frisk another person, and I agree with VOCAL that that is not appropriate.

Amendments 5, 6 and 7 arise from the suggestion by the Law Society that the offence in clause 10 is unnecessary, as there are existing provisions which cover the same matters, such as sections 493, 494 and 495 of the Crimes Act. And amendment 5 omits clause 10, which, as it presently stands, makes it an offence to possess an offensive weapon in a court.

Amendments 6 and 7 are consequential amendments to clause 11. They omit references in that clause to clause 10. Amendment 8 implements the committee's suggested amendment to clause 17 so that the criteria for removing a security officer correlate better to the criteria for appointment as a security officer.

So that, briefly, is what the government is proposing in terms of amendments. We will listen with interest to the other amendments suggested by members at the detail stage. But, again, I stress to members that it is important for clarity, it is important to ensure that our courts properly operate, that relevant powers are in force to protect people who use that court. We have had some instances in the past; no doubt we will have more in the future-I can recall a number of difficult situations during the time I was in the court.

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