Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As I was indicating prior to question time, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Information and Other Measures) Bill 2007 is a largely technical bill, but it is emblematic of the fact that, 2½ years after the government gave these provisions legislative effect with regard to privacy connected to the disclosure of personal information, signatures, photographs and so on, there continues to be a problem. For 2½ years there has been total, complete and utter inertia in terms of fixing the problem. What does the explanatory memorandum have to say about this? It states that this legislation amends the act to:

• address limitations of certain provisions dealing with identifying information;
• broaden the ability of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (“DIAC”) to disclose movement records for the benefit of the person to them that record relates; and
• amend the definition of ‘fisheries detention offence’.

Prosecutions in a number of fisheries cases have not been able to go forward. People have not been able to be prosecuted simply because the departments have been hamstrung by the way in which they have interpreted the government’s legislation. I want to quote further from the explanatory memorandum to show just how significant these limitations have been. It further states:

(4)   The limitations and inflexibility of the permitted grounds for access and disclosure of causing serious problems throughout the DIAC in its day to day work, and for other agencies in the enforcement of the criminal law. DIAC’s ability to continue normal working practices, such as disclosing photos and signatures to other agencies, has been severely hampered and in some instances has been discontinued as a result of the current provisions. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has advanced that many criminal prosecutions, some for drug importation, have been affected because of DIAC’s limited ability to provide essential evidence to assist with the prosecution.

As I said before question time, there have been drug cases that have not been prosecuted. There have been fisheries cases that have not been prosecuted or only prosecuted to the extent that the law allowed because of legislation the government put in place 2½ years ago. How is it possible? This government is so tired, so lax and so flaccid that it has delivered a situation where it cannot remedy something it created itself. Is the Public Service so bound by the privacy provisions that it does not have the wit to see that the current legislation and its limitations are a web around it so it cannot move forward? What is wrong with the ministers? For over 2½ years they have not addressed this. Why hasn’t the government enacted further legislation? If it cannot prosecute for drug importation offences and if it cannot prosecute for fisheries offences then the government should not be here. It should get out of the way and give us a go. To not work on these limitations for 2½ years is completely disastrous.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context