Page 4173 - Week 11 - Thursday, 17 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It means that if you have a fictitious medical degree you cannot undertake surgery. I am a little concerned that this potentially could put an undercover person in a difficult situation if the expertise that a fictitious qualification might convey is tested and that this may result in potentially blowing his cover.
Part 5 of the bill provides for cross-jurisdictional cooperation and associated legal protections under a theme of mutual recognition where corresponding laws are in place. This would enable the ACT to work with other jurisdictions, and vice versa, in undercover operations. I note from the attorney’s presentation speech that all states, except New South Wales and Western Australia, and the commonwealth have corresponding laws in place. The most likely collaboration for the ACT would be with New South Wales and the commonwealth. So I hope the attorney is strongly advocating to his New South Wales counterpart that they press the go button as soon as possible. I hope also that, in the case of the commonwealth, the attorney is suggesting to his counterpart up on the hill that he progress the passage of his bill without delay.
Division 6.1 of the bill sets out the penalties for misuse of assumed identities and the unauthorised disclosure of information about assumed identities, including deliberate or reckless actions in relation thereto. I note that there are some restrictions on the way in which authorisations can be monitored. This is done in such a way as to ensure, presumably, that what has happened in Victoria is not repeated here, where bad pennies in organisations can compromise undercover or secure investigations.
Division 6.2 sets out the reporting requirements, including annual reports to the minister, as well as the kind of material to be excluded from the report before it is tabled in the Assembly. I did consider that we might amend the bill in this area so that those reports might be made on a more confidential basis, say to the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety. But I will pull back from that at this stage because I think that this is a new bill and if we find that there are problems with security I am sure that the attorney will come back to us with appropriate amendments to ensure the security and safety of people involved in this.
Division 6.2 also sets out the law enforcement agency’s record-keeping requirements. It also requires a six-monthly audit of the records while an authority is in place and an audit at least once every six months after it ends or is cancelled. It also grants the Ombudsman the right to full access to the records for inspection and requires the Ombudsman to report under the Annual Reports Act, while excluding defined pieces of identifying information.
Part 7 of the bill sets out the chief officer’s powers to delegate functions and provides that the executive may make regulations. The scrutiny of bills committee raised three matters in relation to this, two of which it recommended that the minister address, and I look forward to hearing those comments. The first of these relates to whether or not the bill should displace the Freedom of Information Act and the Territory Records Act. The committee asked whether this engages the right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act.
Whilst taking off my scrutiny of bills hat and putting on my shadow Attorney-General and my FOI advocate hat, I think the approach taken in the bill is a reasonable one
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .