Police Service Administration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill modernises the security arrangements for Queensland government buildings by repealing the State Buildings Protective Security Act 1983 and moving its provisions into existing police legislation. It creates a single category of 'protective services officer' with standardised security powers and also streamlines identity card requirements for police officers working under Parks and Wildlife legislation.
Who it affects
People entering government buildings face airport-style security measures including name checks and screening. Over 400 protective services staff gain consolidated powers and stronger accountability measures including body-worn cameras and alcohol and drug testing.
Key changes
- The State Buildings Protective Security Act 1983 is repealed, with security provisions consolidated into existing police legislation
- Two tiers of security officers (protective security officers and senior protective security officers) are merged into a single 'protective services officer' role with full security powers
- Police officers and PSOs can now demand the name and address of anyone entering a state building if reasonably necessary for security
- PSOs can direct trespassers and disorderly people to leave government buildings for up to 24 hours, with penalties of up to 20 penalty units for non-compliance
- The definition of items that can be seized ('proscribed things') is expanded to include weapon replicas, laser pointers, and unlawfully possessed items such as drugs
- PSOs are subject to the QPS alcohol and drug testing regime and can use body-worn cameras, with all enforcement actions recorded in a register
- Impersonating a PSO is a new offence carrying a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units
- Police officers acting under Parks and Wildlife legislation no longer need separate identity cards
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee16 Nov 2021View Hansard
Referred to Legal Affairs and Safety Committee
The Economics and Governance Committee examined the bill over approximately three months, receiving two submissions (from the Crime and Corruption Commission and the Queensland Law Society) and holding a public briefing with the Queensland Police Service and the Department of Environment and Science. The committee recommended the bill be passed, finding that its objectives of modernising the legislative framework for Protective Services and streamlining identification requirements were sound. The committee was satisfied that the bill's impact on individual rights (privacy, freedom of movement, and liberty) was reasonable and justified, noting the safeguards built into the legislation.
Key findings (5)
- The Queensland Law Society raised concerns about expanding security powers to all protective services officers without equivalent training, but the QPS confirmed that an additional week of training would be provided to existing officers and new recruits would complete a five-week program.
- The committee found the bill's impact on fundamental legislative principles (right to privacy, freedom of movement, right to liberty) was sufficiently addressed through legislative safeguards including enforcement act registers, same-sex screening requirements, and dignity protections.
- The Crime and Corruption Commission supported the bill and confirmed its oversight jurisdiction over protective services officers would be maintained, while welcoming the provisions for body-worn cameras and drug and alcohol testing.
- The committee noted the bill would resolve operational inefficiencies caused by the existing two-tier officer structure, where protective security officers could only function effectively in the presence of a senior protective security officer.
- The committee was satisfied the bill was compatible with human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019, finding that all identified limitations on human rights were reasonable and justified in the context of state building security.
Recommendations (1)
- The committee recommends the Police Service Administration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 be passed.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading
▸10 members spoke8 support2 oppose
Supported the bill's expansion of drug and alcohol testing to protective services officers, arguing it protects employees, employers and the community.
“That is why I am really proud to be able to rise in support of the Police Service Administration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021.”— 2022-05-12View Hansard
Raised significant concerns that the bill creates a second-tier police force with inadequate accountability, with overly broad powers that could be exercised in commercial contexts and disproportionately affect marginalised groups.
“Essentially, the bill is creating a second-tier police force within Queensland, one where the chain of governance and accountability is far from clear.”— 2022-05-12View Hansard
Spoke in support as the minister responsible for the Forestry Act amendments in the bill, noting the common-sense measures for forestry officer identification and praising the work of protective services officers.
“This bill will complement their service and their credibility as decent people who protect us on a daily basis.”— 2022-05-12View Hansard
Supported the bill as necessary to standardise powers between police and protective services officers, improve efficiencies and clarify the use of force provisions for state building security.
“Put simply, the bill further streamlines and modernises our protective services framework.”— 2022-05-12View Hansard
Opposed the bill as an unwarranted overextension of coercive powers to a new category of officers without adequate training, citing Queensland Law Society concerns about disproportionate impacts on vulnerable people.
“The Queensland Greens do not support this bill in its entirety. Based on the limited expert feedback available via submissions, it is an unwarranted overextension of coercive powers granted to a new category of officers called protective services officers.”— 2022-05-12View Hansard
Supported the bill as ensuring clarity and consistency in protective services officer roles, arguing standardised powers complement police work and protect people in public-facing roles.
“This is not Big Brother attempting to erode the rights of individuals. It is simply guaranteeing and codifying, as much as humanly possible, that everyone remains safe and comfortable in their workplace.”— 2022-05-12View Hansard
Supported the bill's expansion of drug and alcohol testing to protective services officers, arguing it protects both officers and the public from the risks of impaired personnel in security roles.
“To put one's own wellbeing at risk is one thing; to put at risk the welfare of another is an entirely different matter.”— 2022-05-12View Hansard
Supported the bill and emphasised the need for certainty of employment and recognition for the protective services team during the transition to the new framework.
“I commend the bill to the House.”— 2022-05-12View Hansard
Made a brief contribution supporting the bill's new legislative safeguards for protective services officers and police, emphasising that clear requirements will increase public confidence.
“I believe the changes being proposed in the bill are important. Our PSOs and police officers have at times a thankless job, and appreciation and respect is something they deserve.”— 2022-05-12View Hansard
As the responsible minister, replied to the debate addressing concerns about training adequacy, commercial arrangements, and use of force provisions, confirming existing arrangements would continue and training was sufficient.
“This bill is pivotal for the Protective Services Group in the succession of transformations that this very hardworking group is undertaking.”— 2022-05-12View Hansard