Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill- Third Reading – Video 6
Articles,  Blog

Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill- Third Reading – Video 6


David Clinton hey Thank You mr. speaker and I’m pleased to make some brief comments to this bill um sadly I need to disrupt the unanimity you have support for this bill by saying that the greens will continue to oppose the legislation as we have done throughout I would certainly acknowledge that the bill is in better shape than had went and when it after its first reading the Select Committee the Law & Order Committee did a good job and entered some new provisions which are useful I mean that some of the provisions are not it was a good committee and but that didn’t quite deliver a bill that the Greens could come to support could identify and just acknowledge the chair of the committee mr. bakshy who has been a very I always admired his calm and respectful approach to chairing that committee which sometimes was marginally volatile and he will so was very reliable and the provision of biscuits and refreshments which is always an admirable quality in a chair but he was an excellent chair and I do acknowledge that so we’ve heard many times that this legislation was in response to mr. Phillip Trainor / Smith’s escape to South America oddly enough I see very little in this bill actually that would have contributed to preventing that fellow from escaping the country the the fact that he was able to get what was in essence a legal passport illegally procured but actually a passport an illegal name was due to a bureaucratic blunder going back many many years and I not by any means convinced that anything in this bill would prevent that sort of human error occurring the primary the fundamental world rather his escape could have been very easily prevented had the corrections department followed its own processes and more impure and her comments made the point that Corrections have adjusted their processes they have a little she’s entirely correct but actually of Corrections at the time had simply complied with existing checks and balances had they bothered to listen to the advice of their own senior police officers who were very skeptical of the trustworthiness of this fellow had they bothered to make that one phone call that I think mr. little mentioned to the sponsor who actually had no idea that mr. Smith was being released so Corrections made a series of errors or any point in that chain of errors this escape could have been prevented and an unfortunate consequence was they initially the complete band the halting of the temporary release release to work program and even now that program is not back to its um to the volume its it previously was that’s most unfortunate because released to work particularly in temporary release does provide a stage transition of offenders back to the community that is proven to be very positive simply being in prison Monday released to the community the next is actually less ideal than many cases and having these people able to have a stage for a two and a managed return back to the community sir mr. little also made the point that the spill has been three years in the passing arguably it has been rather a slow progress through the house but in a sense we’ve had the worst of both worlds because if you read the advice to the committee from new justice officials the early analysis of the problem the framing of this of the apparent solution to drafting was all done in considerable haste and that has made apparent in the advice from just from officials who’ve made it quite clear that this was the best advice the best analysis they could offer in the time that had been given them and implicitly if that had more time they may have prevented our presented a much broader analysis of what the issue was what the issues were and suggest that some solutions to them we are under no illusion so we entirely agreed that the there is a an issue around information sharing within and between agencies not least of all in the justice sector the fact that I know that there are some very hard barriers preventing exchange of information between Family Court and district court which on occasion has had the effect of actually endangering people for example where a protection order is being applied for in the family court but they’re unable to access information about other matters being dealt with in the in the district court that’s entirely unhelpful and there are many other examples of that I’ve heard from lawyers from the judiciary from stakeholders that we need to do better in that space we do need to find solutions where we can ensure that government agencies that legitimately need particular information and can apply that information to improving or ensuring public safety we need to enable those flows and those connections we also need to find those enablers in a way that does not compromise people’s reasonable expectation of privacy in information they give to multiple government agencies so unbalanced while we agree there was an issue here there is a and there continues to be a problem around information sharing so we’re not convinced that this bill provides the solution to it and therefore cannot support it thank you madam Speaker mr. Burdon Brad thank you madam Speaker this being your first call I think

Leave a Reply

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