Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1885 ..
MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (4.30): Mr Rugendyke's amendments Nos 2 to 4, and his amendment No 6, all deal with the power of security officers to search persons on court premises. The amendments would omit the power to conduct a frisk search-that is, a pat down of a person-but the power to conduct a screening search would be retained. Screening searches-that is, using electronic devices-have proven to be very effective at Australian airports, and the loss of the power to conduct frisk searches should not compromise court security. Of course, the police will retain powers under the Crimes Act 1900 to frisk search persons who are suspected of committing an offence in a court.
Mr Rugendyke's amendments would also remove the power of security officers to open and search bags or briefcases, but a security officer, of course, would still have the power to require that any such bag or briefcase be left with a security officer if he or she believes it might contain an offensive weapon.
I understand that the last time or the second last time this matter was before the Assembly, my officers had discussions with Mr Rugendyke in relation to clause 9, and it was agreed that subclauses (3) and (4) be retained. Subclause (3) is an important safeguard to prevent abuse of the search power and subclause (4) gives the search power teeth by making it an offence for a person to refuse to comply with the requirement or leave the court. Without that, of course, the search powers cannot be enforced. But we are certainly quite comfortable with Mr Rugendyke's amendment in relation to frisk searches.
MS TUCKER (4.31): We will also support the amendment. Mr Rugendyke's argument is largely that the police do not have these powers in public places and therefore private security forces should not. While this is a concern in that it represents increased powers with potentially less accountability, the power to refuse someone entry if they do not submit to a frisk search clearly has the potential to intrude on a person's right to enter public court premises unhindered. So we will support this amendment to remove the power to frisk search.
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.31): The Labor Party will support the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR RUGENDYKE (4.32): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 1980]. This amendment removes the ability of security guards to search bags, containers and anything else that people carry into courts.
MS TUCKER
(4.32): The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. Subclause (1) grants security officers the power to search bags or other items in a person's possession. We have decided to support the subclause for a number of reasons. It was a difficult decision. On the one hand, there is a case against security officers having this power and a concern about the potential disruption that could be caused by searching lawyers' bags or the bags of people representing themselves. On the other hand, without the power to search a bag, a security officer is only able to request that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .