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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1877 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

the exception of amendments 3 and 4, which will not be necessary as a result of us supporting Mr Rugendyke's amendments.

I hear what Ms Tucker says. Perhaps what we have ended up with is not absolutely ideal but, having looked at this quite closely, I think the legislation will very much be workable. I will speak to Mr Rugendyke's amendments when he moves them. In speaking to Mr Stanhope's amendment No 1, I will also cover his amendments 2 and 8 to 16. I will speak to his amendment No 3 when he moves it.

Mr Stanhope's amendments Nos 1 and 2 and 8 to 16 would introduce a new requirement for security officers, other than sheriffs or the police, to be employed under a court security agreement, which would need to comply with legislative requirements in proposed sections 6A to 6D. I do not think it is really clear how this requirement would afford court users greater protection than would the government's proposals, because under the government's proposals it is also envisaged that private security firms would be contracted to provide security services in accordance with the act. Given the existing requirements for accountability and reporting on government contracts, it really is not clear how legislating for the form of that contract will improve transparency, accountability or even consistency with normal government purchasing guidelines. So whilst I can see what Mr Stanhope is getting at, I think there are better ways of doing it.

Labor amendments 1 and 2 and 8 to 16 envisage that the courts will be able to develop security guidelines. It could certainly be argued that leaving it to unelected court officials to determine security arrangements for the courts in fact provides less certainty and transparency for citizens than spelling out the security requirements in legislation enacted by a democratically elected Assembly. It is certainly not clear whether the guidelines would be disallowable, how they are to be published, what matters they cover, and how they would be enforced. In effect, the Assembly would be handing the court a blank cheque.

It is not enough just to make the contractor subject to the FOI Act and to hand the Ombudsman the job of monitoring the security company's performance, which we say would be the effect of Labor's proposed new sections 6B and 6C. We feel the Assembly should not abdicate its responsibility for deciding how to secure the safety of our courts.

Question put:

The Assembly voted-

	Ayes, 8  			Noes, 9

 Mr Berry  	Mr Stanhope  	Mrs Burke  	Mr Osborne
 Mr Corbell  	Ms Tucker  	Mr Cornwell  	Mr Rugendyke
 Mr Hargreaves  Mr Wood  	Mr Hird  	Mr Smyth
 Mr Kaine    			Mr Humphries  	Mr Stefaniak
 Mr Quinlan    			Mr Moore

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