Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk on the Court Security Bill 2013 and Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. The bills seek to implement a new framework for the security arrangements of all Commonwealth courts, including the Family Court of Western Australia and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It removes the courts and tribunals currently covered by the provisions of the Public Order Act and replaces it with an updated security framework. The Court Security Bill 2013 responds to concerns raised by the heads of jurisdiction of the federal courts. The current Public Order Act does not meet the security needs of the modern court environment. The bill aims to ensure that the courts are able to reduce the risk of security incidents where possible and, if needed, respond appropriately to incidents as they arise. The consequences from a breach of security in these circumstances are a serious issue and it is vital that all cases before these courts are heard without fear, intimidation and/or violence.

The Court Security Bill 2013 seeks to amend the current legislative framework for the Commonwealth court and tribunal security arrangements as would expand the range of powers available to security officers and authorised court officers. Current security at most of the federal courts and tribunal premises has been provided through security guards, but under current legislation it assumes that there is a presence of police officers on the court premises, which is most often not the case. As a result, security officers are uncertain of their powers to temporarily detain people of concern or confiscate certain materials. The current legislative framework does not contain an appropriate range of powers and the necessary safeguards when exercising these powers.

The bill seeks to implement a comprehensive framework which will enable the federal courts and tribunals to manage a wide range of security issues that they face. The courts will be able to appoint security officers and authorised court officers and clearly establish the powers that these officers are able to exercise. The powers outlined in this bill include search and screening powers, powers to give directions and limited powers to use necessary and reasonable force. However, only appropriately trained and licensed security officers will be able to use force in clearly defined circumstances as outlined in this bill.

As well as the safeguards of appropriate training and licensing, this bill also provides safeguards in the form of identification requirements, complaints mechanisms and oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The bill allows that for times when security officers are not present at all courts—especially the case at regional courts—the court officers may exercise a limited range of basic security powers when necessary. The range of powers that may be exercised differs between security officers and authorised court officers. Only security officers will be able to exercise the broader range of powers. The bill prescribes certain offences related to noncompliance with the exercise of the powers of security officers and authorised court officers. Security officers are provided with the power to escort people to and from court premises as a protective measure. Given the different security needs of the courts and tribunals, this bill seeks to implement flexible security arrangements to cover a range of different guarding arrangements.

The bill balances a person's right to enter and remain upon court premises with the rights of judicial officers, court staff and members of the public to a safe and secure environment. The Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill replaces the current security framework for federal courts and tribunals under the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971. The current framework is outdated and does not meet the security requirements of our current courts and tribunals. The bill allows for the implementation of this new framework, and will achieve this by removing the existing provisions in the public order act, in order to prevent the provisions from overlapping with the court security bill.

The government contends that the bills have been developed in consultation with the Commonwealth courts and tribunals. As I have previously noted, concerns have been raised by the heads of jurisdiction of the Commonwealth courts that the existing framework for court security does not meet the needs of the modern court environment. It is unclear how frequently security incidents are arising on court premises and how adequate are the current security arrangements. However, the consequences of a breach of security in the circumstances are very serious issues, and the measures proposed in the bill seem reasonable and proportionate. It is important that cases are heard without fear, intimidation or violence.

These bills provide the necessary powers so that the security needs of the modern court environment are now sufficiently clear. These bills ensure that our courts and tribunals are safe and secure places for members of the public to have their disputes heard, and they are therefore worthy of support by this House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the words of the shadow minister, most importantly, as he stated, that the existing framework for court security does not meet the needs of the modern court environment. That was a concern raised by the heads of jurisdiction of the Commonwealth courts, following consultation with the government in relation to this bill and in relation to the provisions of current court security arrangements.

Certainly, our courts are the hallmark of our democracy—as is the parliament—and the people working in those courts, whether they be officers of the Crown, police officers, or whether they be defendants or people involved in cases, need to have proper security and adequate security measures. They need to know that when they attend court they can do so in a safe environment. This bill goes part of the way, or all of the way, towards helping to improve these arrangements so that people can have that safety and security in the knowledge that they can attend court in a safe environment. The consequences of a breach of security in these circumstances are a serious issue, and the measures proposed in this bill seem adequate and proportionate. It is important that cases are heard, as the shadow minister just related, without fear, violence or intimidation. The powers that appointed security officers and authorised court officers may exercise in respect of screening, giving directions or removing a person from court premises appear, according to this bill, reasonable and necessary to enhance the security of the federal courts.

Furthermore, the measures proposed in the bill may go part of the way to providing court users—particularly those who reasonably fear attending court proceedings and unfortunately that is a great number of people—with improved certainty that their case will be heard in a safe and secure environment. The Court Security Bill 2013 and the associated consequential amendments bill make substantive alterations to security provisions by the Commonwealth courts and the tribunals.

Unfortunately, it is a necessary bill that we need to implement. It seeks to implement the current legislative framework for Commonwealth court and tribunal security arrangements, and would expand the range of powers available to security officers and authorised court officers, who need to know that their work is important and that the important work they do can be conducted in a safe environment. The new security arrangements will be uniform across all Commonwealth courts, including the Family Court of Western Australia and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Family courts, as we all know, are places where tempers can rise. They are places where there is a lot of emotion and sometimes emotion boils over into fear, intimidation and violence.

Hopefully, this bill will make it a far more secure and safe environment for all those people attending the court whatever the necessity. Presently the legislative framework for security at Commonwealth courts and tribunals is contained in part IIA of the Public Order (Provision of Persons and Property) Act 1971. This legislation is outdated. It needs to be improved upon. It needs to be regulated such that it brings it up to speed with 2013 expectations. This bill and amendment do just that and the coalition therefore supports it.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. The measures contained in the Court Security Bill and the accompanying Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill help to make sure that federal court and tribunal premises are safe and secure for people to resolve disputes. Those people using courts are often under stress and in distress. Court processes can be daunting and financially costly, particularly for those matters involving family law. I can say, with more than two decades of practice in the jurisdiction of family law, that you see from time to time the stress, anger and hostility that people face in the courts.

Everyone who goes to court should go there without fear of intimidation, violence or abuse. This right forms a critical part of any civil society and is also important in ensuring the integrity of the court processes. I stress that these security arrangements and enhancements will not quite make court buildings or rights of entry more difficult or arduous for members of the public, rather they are there as a necessity to ensure that people, even in the most trying of difficult circumstances, can be confident that they can go to the courts and have their disputes resolved in a safe and amiable environment.

This Court Security Bill is a product of the government's close consultation with the federal courts and tribunals to identify a more effective security framework. That framework established by this piece of legislation is comprehensive. It will support the federal courts and tribunals in making sure that any serious security issues they face across the various locations across Australia are addressed. They will be flexible enough in different security arrangements to deal with those. The enhanced powers conferred on security officers and authorised court officers by the bill will prevent security incidents from arising on those premises. Where they arise, they ensure that those particularly appointed officials and officers can deal with them expeditiously and appropriately.

The bill includes important safeguards and accountability mechanisms. These include: licensing, training and identification requirements. These safeguards are important. They ensure that the powers authorised by the bill are used responsibly in appropriate circumstances by people with good training, appropriate skills and education.

The courts will still call on the police, as they should, in the most serious situations. However, given that security incidents can arise with little warning, almost a moment's notice, and can erupt very violently with tremendous anger and abuse, it is important that the courts have security and safety at the forefront, and ensure that the safety and security of the premises are secured before the police arrive on the premises.

The bills appropriately modernise the legal framework for the courts and tribunal security arrangements. They ensure that those accessing our courts and tribunals can be confident in the safety and security of the premises they attend to have their cases heard and can have their arguments heard before a court without abuse, intimidation and violence. I commend the bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.