Legislative Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Wednesday 15 June 2011 __________ The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 11.00 a.m. The President read the Prayers. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Formal Business Notices of Motions Private Members' Business item No. 97 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business. Private Members' Business item No. 106 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business. TABLING OF PAPERS The Hon. Greg Pearce tabled the following paper: Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993—Report of Official Community Visitors for the year ended 30 June 2010. Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of a performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Government expenditure and transport planning in relation to implementing Barangaroo—Barangaroo Delivery Authority, Department of Transport, NSW Treasury", dated June 2011, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 15 June 2011. PETITIONS Coal-Fired Power Stations Petition requesting that the Government halt its electricity privatisation plans, ensure no new coal-fired generation in New South Wales and implement a transition plan to a jobs rich, renewable energy future, received from Dr John Kaye. Battery Cage Egg Production Petition requesting the House to support a moratorium on the construction of new battery cages for egg production, phase out battery cages and demand that the Government lobby the national regulator, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, to ban the sale of battery cage eggs in Australia, received from Dr John Kaye. Electricity Generation and Sale Petition requesting that the House legislate to reverse the sale of energy retailers, call on the Government to invest in publicly owned renewable energy generation and protect households from massive increases in electricity bills by improving energy efficiency, received from Dr John Kaye. Solar Bonus Scheme Petition opposing the Government's legislation to terminate the Solar Bonus Scheme and requesting that the House fulfil its promise to existing customers, vote against the retrospective reduction of the bonus tariff and support moves for a sustainable scheme to nurture the solar industry, including a grid parity buy-back tariff for new customers, received from Dr John Kaye. 15 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2277 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Postponement of Business Government Business Order of the Day No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Postponement of Business Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by Mr David Shoebridge. COURT SECURITY AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Second Reading The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.22 a.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Michael Gallacher: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The bill before the House gives effect to recommendations arising out of a five-year statutory review of the Court Security Act 2005, which has previously been tabled in this House. The Court Security Act 2005 provides a statutory basis for the exercise of security powers in New South Wales courts. The legislation provides security officers with a range of powers that are specifically directed at ensuring the secure and orderly operation of courts. Sheriff's officers generally undertake court security and have the power to undertake limited searches of court users and confiscate offensive implements or prohibited items, such as weapons. The existing power of arrest under the Court Security Act applies to such matters as absconding to avoid arrest—known as a power of "hot pursuit"—the obstruction of security officers, failure to obey a direction by a security officer and the destruction of signs in court premises. Security incidents in New South Wales courts are relatively uncommon. Nevertheless, there have been a number of incidents where sheriff's officers and people on court premises have been subject to violence. The bill provides that security officers may arrest a person where they or other people attending court premises are the subject of an act of violence under part 3 of the Crimes Act 1900. Part 3 of that Act relates to offences against the person. Consistent with the safeguards contained in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, the bill also provides that a security officer may discontinue an arrest at any time if the arrested person is no longer a suspect or the reason for the arrest no longer exits. Security officers will receive further training in relation to their new powers. The definition of "court premises" in the bill has also been amended. The definition makes it clear that court premises extend to areas used in relation to the operations of the court or nearby areas used for other purposes. The proposed amendment will enable security officers to intervene where members of the public are being harassed or altercations occur in areas adjacent to the court, such as in a justice precinct or on a footpath. The Court Security Act currently provides that a judicial officer may order that members of the public leave court premises or be denied entry to court premises where this is considered necessary for securing order and safety in court premises. Currently, such orders may be open ended. The bill clarifies the operation of the provision so that an initial order is limited to 28 days but may be renewed. Other relatively minor amendments to the legislation introduce restrictions concerning the bringing of alcohol and animals into court premises and the wearing of helmets on court premises. Assistance animals will, of course, continue to be permitted in court premises. The bill updates the Court Security Act and will help to ensure that security officers in courts can continue to perform their role in protecting court personnel and other court users. The bill will commence towards the end to the year, once security officers have received appropriate training relating to the changes to the Act. I commend the bill to the House. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.26 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Court Security Amendment Bill 2011. As we have heard, the Court Security Act 2005 was a significant and progressive step to ensure that the inherent powers of the court were put on a proper statutory basis to codify what may be called the vagaries of the common law. Providing a proper basis for court security 2278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 June 2011 is important for the administration of justice. While the principle of the public's access to the court remains, and is enshrined in the legislation, that legislation provided a number of restrictions, including provisions consistent with move-on powers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, search powers, arrest powers and the like, and they were given a proper statutory form. As we have heard, a five-year review was enshrined in the legislation, and that review has been tabled in each House. The bill before the House provides a number of slight but important modifications, such as clarifying the duration of orders that may be made by judicial officers that exclude members of the public generally or certain members of the public from court premises. As the Hon. David Clarke said, the bill also contains measures preventing the taking of animals and alcohol into court, and enables a court security officer to require a person not to wear a helmet that obscures the face while in court. It also enables court security officers to arrest a person who is committing an act of violence against another person in court premises or has done so, and it extends the definition of "court premises". These are slight but important modifications to ensure that the legislation passed in 2005 continues to meet its proper statutory objectives, and the Opposition supports that. The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [11.28 a.m.]: I enthusiastically support the Court Security Amendment Bill 2011. In the past some members have, in a derisive way, made reference to most of my legal practice having been in the Local Court. In that respect, what one learns in that jurisdiction particularly is that the bulk of our justice is rendered in courthouses that are often extraordinarily busy and where one sees both the highs and lows of human nature and the dynamism of human relationships. The bill reinforces the need to finetune the Court Security Act 2005, which is important. I note that specific reference has already been made to the need to exclude somebody with an animal from a courthouse. One need only practise in a country area to know that it is not entirely uncommon to see a member of the public turn up at court with his dog, for instance, or some other animal. In those circumstances it is sometimes appropriate that there be the capacity to exclude that person from court premises. It is worth noting that the amendments sought in schedule 1 [3], proposed section 7A (3), specifically provide that the power to exclude does not extend to assistance animals. Clearly, it is important that people with a disability who need the assistance of an animal are not excluded. I also note that item [5], which amends section 11 of the Act, will enable court security officers to require the surrender of alcohol. Again, particularly in a Local Court context, from time to time people will attend armed with some fortifying substance and problems can arise. One would hope in all sincerity that the powers in this proposed section are applied reasonably and in a considered fashion.