Child Protection

Child protection members lift court bans

There has been a long-running dispute, not with DOCS, but with the Attorney Generals Department which runs the court.

While the Department, and everyone else, agrees that the current building is inadequate, it is unwilling to install scanning devices and take other essential measures. And it has no plan or schedule for the
new premises.

Last July, following bans, a room for DOCS staff and an undertaking to improve security was obtained.

The PSA is asking for:

• * a timeframe for the move to new premises:
  

• * weapons screening of people at the court;
  

• * increased presence of uniformed officers (Sheriff's Office);
  

• * a dedicated room for DOCS staff with entrance to the court rooms;
  

• * furniture relocation to improve access to alarm panels;
  

• * provision of infotainment for clients;
  

• * appropriate signage warning court users of security arrangements.

A number of assaults and threats have occurred at St James. Safety and
security issues at other courts have also been brought to the union's
attention.

Under the OHS Act it is the Attorney General's Department that has prime responsibility to ensure the courts are safe for workers, visitors, "clients" and their families.

© 2001 Community & Public Sector Union - State Public Services Federation (CPSU-SPSF) - National Office

http://www.cpsu-spsf.asn.au/campaigns/child_protection/20021126_102.html
Last Modified: 15 Nov 2005