Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill- Second Reading – Video 7
Articles,  Blog

Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill- Second Reading – Video 7


this bill to the house sir chicken I call David Clinton you think it was the speaker I’m pleased to take a somewhat contrary you to the rest of the speakers we’ve heard to this bill the greens are not supporting this legislation we see it as addressing the wrong problem in the sense they may certainly be an issue around information sharing we think however this bill goes too far and the peculiarity of this legislation is that in the introduction to the commentary we are told that the bill response to perceived weaknesses and legislation regarding offender and patient management that identified in the government inquiry entitled matters concerning the escape of Philip John Smith Traynor the peculiarity is that had all the provisions proposed in this bill been enacted been in legislation at the time that mr. Smith / Trainor took his brief excursion to South America nothing would have changed there’s nothing in this bill actually that would have prevented him doing exactly what he did and that’s very strange in its own right the real issues the the the inquiry actually identified a whole raft of issues and failures that enabled mr. Smith to escape and to make his journey to to Brazil the main findings are set out what are referred to as principal causes and deficiencies that fail to present his escape the inquiry likened it to links in a chain had one of those links not been present have one of those failures had not occurred that mr. Smith would not have got away and we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation firstly and these are identified as the the links and efficiencies that contributed to his ability to escape Corrections did not adequately assess or mitigate mr. Smith’s risk the surveillance and monitoring of must dismiss addict activities were inadequate it goes on to say mr. Smith should have been subject to higher levels of vigilance by custodial staff telogen staff staff members generally and says that experienced officers expressed strong misgivings about mr. Smith which were not always shared or ups or assists or not influential mr. NESH identify or referred to mr. Smith has been thick as two short planks I love the phrase personally but I think it’s um I’m not here to defend in any way mr. Smith’s character or actions but in fact he displayed a considerable cunning there our site even intelligence being able to manipulate access to a passport and to get out of the country his undoubted cunning / intelligence was proven by the fact that he illegally but successfully ran a couple of businesses and generated a healthy amount of money for himself while still in custody so while he certainly proved to be foolish by putting himself in a public forum after his escape he did to demonstrate a level of cleverness at least or come in and I think that the the statement the fairly bold statement that the inquiry revealed issues around information sharing is not untrue but it it over emphasizes the importance of those problems had mr. Smith or Trainor been correctly identified then he would never have been able to get a passport did we have legislation in place that said serving prisoners may not get passports that would have stopped them presumably except of course for the historic glitch that meant there were no links anywhere in anybody’s database linking Phillip Smith with us in the name of Trainor so the the response which has been a significant increase in the ability the potential capacity for various government agencies to share information we think is a significant overreaction in terms of the likelihood that that sharing or a lack of ability to share information was in fact the problem that enabled this fellow to get away we already have as was pointed out I think by the Law Society we already have a mechanism to enable agencies to share information and there are called aces approved information sharing agreements and we heard a fairly robust submission or several of them in fact that suggested that those agreements could be used to allow for not only bilateral but multilateral arrangements for information sharing between various agencies and an argument would need to be made that it was necessary the the agreements could be constructed in such a way that the need was demonstrated and that we fear kept fairly tight reins on the ability of these agencies to share information it’s always a fraud sort of an area of the question of information sharing between government agencies because on a practical day-to-day basis you can see it’s it’s sensible and necessary police courts agencies involved with managing domestic violence you can see very quickly that if they’re if the barriers to information sharing are to impermeable or to excessive then we aren’t not going to get good outcomes for some vulnerable people in our communities but we have to be very thoughtful about exactly how far those agreements go and I think that this bill has overreacted in part I think I think part of the reason why this bill has become sort of a catch-all almost an omnibus not a not a universal freeing up of agencies to share information but it has gone a long way down that road I think it’s not as good a bill as it could have been and we can get some evidence for that from a regulatory impact statement which was probably one of the most um a straightforward and frank pieces of advice I’ve seen from Justice officials they said very clearly that the main constraint they have faced and they’re only regulatory impact analysis was time the message is very clearly stated in the RIS that the government their justice officials did not have time to do a decent job they say the government has committed to introducing legislation as quickly as possible to improve the ability of agencies verified enter fees compounded by say by the government’s decision to not implement recommendations by the inquiry or to and consider the full range of tools to enable better information sharing it’s a bit like the old expression a marion haste repent at leisure i think the same can be said about making legislation about forming statutes if you do it quickly under the haste I think generated by the public spotlight the public concern and rightful concern that this very dangerous person was able to leave the country but I think that reacting to that sort of public pressure does not make for good legislation and I think there’s some this bill is an example of that the point was made earlier that in terms again there’s general theme of overreaction temporary release had been and is and could be again a very successful mechanism for making that transition from prison to society the the enquiry actually made the point that here we are in the 10-year period ending in 24 and 2014 the reported number of breaches of temporary release conditions by prisoners was extremely small even minuscule minuscule was the word they used in terms of the incidents of people abusing or failing to comply with conditions at temporary release and yet witness one guy a very smart person they’re not an admirable person in any way managed to manipulate himself a passport and get out because corrections frankly will not do any job of monitoring him they did not confirm the sponsor they did not do a large number of things the fact that this fellow was able to get away one serious breach immediately led to a blanket hold on temporary release which not only disadvantaged prisoners but some employers who were actually giving those prisoners jobs were extremely upset that the the inmates turned up to work one day and the next day they didn’t arrive because they weren’t released from prison it sort of undermined employers confidence and the ability of Corrections to reliably supply them with people who are going to do some useful work to learn some skills so again their whole sense of overreaction I think even now several years later the incidence of temporary release is only at something like 80 percent of what it was before this one escape which the inquiry as I say breaches they described as miniscule so all in all sir I think are we the greens think that this legislation goes too far and enabling information sharing it is a difficult area as I’ve said I can see certainly that we don’t want to allow people to be disadvantaged we don’t want to allow people to be victimized we don’t want to inhibit the provision of necessary social services to individuals who are in need of them by absence or lacks and the ability of agencies to share information but legislation done in haste and the glare and under public pressure is seldom good legislation and I fear this sub bill has for women to that Thank You mr. speaker I call mahi Bindra TV Thank You mr. speaker and I tried on behalf of news

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *