Hansard debates

Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) — The Justice Legislation Amendment (Court Security, Juries and Other Matters) Bill 2017 will make a range of amendments to improve the operation of the justice system, as well as other minor amendments beyond the justice portfolio. The non-justice amendments concern consequential amendments to natural resources legislation and statute law revisions, but the main proposition here is the bill will support a new court security model by amending the Court Security Act 1980 and associated acts to provide clearer and enhanced security powers to court security officers, known as authorised officers. Under the new court security model, entry screening for Victorian courts and tribunals will be upgraded, along with the rollout of increased numbers of better trained and equipped court security officers.

Those who have a memory of law and order in Victoria will remember that someone was actually shot in the precincts of the Melbourne Magistrates Court some years ago, so this is about how we actually upgrade security. The bill will make a range of other amendments to improve the operation of the justice system. These include amending the Juries Act 2000 to reduce potential discrimination and improve the jury empanelment process; improving the operation of the Appeal Costs Act 1998; improving the handling of trust moneys by providing the Victorian Legal Services Board with greater powers to safeguard clients' trust moneys — an important improvement there; and making jurisdictional amendments to the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 to reflect the increase in property values since the enactment of that principal act.

The bill also amends other court and tribunal-related provisions to harmonise leave to appeal provisions in court statutes with those under the new civil appeals regime, established in 2014; to change certain time frames to accommodate Australia Post's revised letter delivery time frames; to extend the statutory fee reimbursement presumption in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 to cover planning enforcement proceedings; repeal the unnecessary procedural requirement in the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 for the return of execution copies of all warrants and instead empower the Magistrates Court and the Children's Court to make tailored rules on the return of warrants; add judicial registrars to the list of people who can undertake certain case transfer functions under the Courts (Case Transfer) Act 1991; to add the President of the Children's Court and the State Coroner to the board of the Judicial College of Victoria, joining the other heads of jurisdictions as board members; and to clarify the Chief Magistrate's leave entitlements under the Judicial Entitlements Act 2015.

So there are a whole range of big-picture, systemic issues that are being addressed and then some, housekeeping issues that are being fixed at the same time. The bill will also make consequential amendments to natural resources legislation to ensure recent traditional owner amendments operate as intended, and various statute law revisions.

Different parts of the bill will come into operation on different dates. I will not go into the detail of that, but the substantive proposition is that one of the key things in the policy context is there is a new court security model, which was funded through the 2016–17 budget. This funding to Court Services Victoria of more than $58 million over four years for a new court security model and asset upgrades to court facilities is a vast improvement and will create a safer and more secure environment for court users and registry staff.

The new court security model will provide the following minimum security standards for all Victorian courts and tribunals, when in session: entry screening to detect and remove prohibited and offensive items, including weapons; and an increased and more highly trained and equipped — carrying handcuffs and batons — private court security officer presence, including roving patrols, that will enable police in regional Victoria to focus their resources on general policing duties rather than the provision of court security. That is a better use of manpower within rural and regional Victoria.

In the policy context, the new court security model responds to the inconsistent levels of court security across courts and responds to the security challenges faced by courts. In the Victorian system, security is provided by police in regional courts under informal arrangements, protective services officers in metropolitan courts and private security providing entry screening at a number of court locations. In regional courts there is inadequate weapon screening capability and a reliance on police to provide security.

The new court security model will reduce risks to court users and increase public confidence in the justice system. The model will maintain the current number of protective services officers but enable police who currently provide court security in regional courts to be released for general policing duties, so that is a better use of manpower. Some police will continue to be required for court security and be present at sittings of the Supreme Court and County Court in their criminal jurisdiction.

The new court security model will deploy approximately 160 private security officers across court and tribunal premises, including at 40 courts where there was previously no formal security presence in place, so that is a significant upgrade and improvement. The new court security model will provide approximately 70 new court security officers in addition to 94 court security officers currently deployed under the existing model.

The bill will amend the Court Security Act to support the increased use of private court security officers in Victoria's court network. The proposed amendments will clarify and strengthen the powers of court security officers who are appointed as authorised officers under the Court Security Act to ensure that these officers can maintain the safety and order of Victoria's courts.

The key proposed amendments will provide a general power to make directions for the security, good order and management of courts, including making directions to ensure the safety of a person or authorised officer when escorting a person to and from court premises; provide a power to make directions to respond to unauthorised recordings, transmissions and publications; and clarify that reasonable force may be used by authorised officers in the exercise of their powers.

The Court Security Act 1980 expressly authorises the use of force in relation to the exercise of some powers, including in undertaking searches and removing a person from court premises where that person has failed to submit to the demands or requirements made by the authorised officer. However, the Court Security Act does not expressly authorise the use of force in relation to other powers, and examples cited are in preventing a person entering or removing a person from the court premises where the person is likely to adversely affect the security, good order or management of court premises and in the seizing of a prohibited item from a person. Accordingly the proposed amendments will clarify that an authorised officer can use reasonable force in the exercise of the following powers: undertaking searches, enforcing an officer's direction, preventing a person from entering or removing a person from the court premises, seizing prohibited items and ensuring the safety of an escorted person or the authorised officer while that person is escorted to and from the court premises.

These are commonsense initiatives that are being implemented. This clarification will ensure that authorised officers have a clear authority to use reasonable force to ensure the safety and security of persons at court premises. These changes will ensure that the current lack of clarity about the use of force does not prevent necessary and appropriate responses by authorised officers to ensure the safety of court users and staff. That is a critical point about how appropriate force is used, and that goes to the previous proposition that I raised in my last contribution as well as to the use of deadly force and the investigations that I undertook in pursuing that in the media — which led to Walkley Awards for investigative reporting — and the way the opposition is now trying to revise that. I think they need to understand that this went to the issue of fatal police shootings and helped to raise the issue to international prominence, according to the Walkley Awards citation.

After years of denying they were part of problem, Victoria Police retrained the entire operational force in the use of firearms. I think that is the key summation of what that was about. We need to be able to make sure that we have scrutiny and accountability and that we have safety in our courts. I recommend the bill to the house.