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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1879 ..

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.02): Mr Speaker, I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 2, part 1, at page 1973]. This amendment seeks to insert new clauses 6A to 6D inclusive. These clauses are effectively at the heart of the scheme that I propose be instituted for the provision of security in the courts. They in effect explain the nature of the arrangements that I propose for the better security of both the Supreme Court and the Magistrates Court.

These amendments allow for a contract system of security. They set out the terms and conditions of contract and provide for specific details, particularly in relation to the objectives in performance and reporting that will relate to the security standards.

As I explained before, Mr Speaker, these provisions impose on the courts the obligation to enter into an agreement or arrangement with a contractor for the provision of security services to the court. What that does is set out quite explicitly that the responsibility for the security of the courts is that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court. That, to my mind, is quite clearly where the responsibility should lie.

As I indicated before, both the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court have a clear statutory responsibility for the management of all aspects of their courts. I have made the point that the government's proposal and the government's legislative scheme in effect invests in the chief executive of the Attorney-General's Department responsibility for the management or arrangement of security services for each of those two courts. My contention is that that simply is not appropriate. This longhand arrangement for security of the Supreme Court and the Magistrates Court, whereby the chief executive of the Attorney-General's Department has responsibility over and above that of the Chief Justice and the Chief Magistrate, is not appropriate.

Surely, the judicial officers charged with the legislative responsibility for the management of those institutions should be responsible for this very important aspect of management, namely security. This scheme charges both the Chief Judge and the Chief Magistrate to develop security guidelines that set out every aspect of the security arrangements that they believe are appropriate to apply in their courts.

What could be more reasonable than that-that it is for the Chief Justice and the Chief Magistrate to decide, to determine, the precise nature of the security arrangements that should apply in their courts? It is for them to decide the basis on which people should be permitted to enter the courts, the conditions that should apply to their entry, the circumstances in which they may be refused entry or ejected and the steps that they should take to ensure the security of everybody who enters their courts-all of those people who work in the courts, all of those people who participate in the business of the court and all of those members of the public who enter the courts for the simple sake of observing justice in action. I think this is a responsibility that is rightly invested in the courts and should not be delegated to some other official.

I referred briefly in my earlier comments to some of the separation of power issues that apply in relation to the need to separate the role and responsibility of members of the executive or the government and that of the courts. The Chief Justice and the Chief Magistrate have been invested quite specifically under their enabling legislation with

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