- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 29 October 2002
Ivan Milat Breach of Privacy Allegation
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 16 of 40
| Next Item »
Page: 6022
Mr CRITTENDEN: I direct my question to the Minister for Corrective Services. What are the latest developments involving mass murderer Ivan Milat and related matters?
Mr AMERY: I should begin by asking those who think they have heard everything to listen. As honourable members know, Ivan Milat has the dubious distinction of being the first inmate in the 70-bed high-risk management unit within Goulburn gaol, which is commonly known as the supermax prison. He is rightly classified as an extreme high-risk inmate. Honourable members will recall that on 20 February 2001 Milat informed prison authorities he had ingested razor blades, stationery staples and a small chain from a pair of nail clippers. He obtained razor blades by dismantling disposable razors that are provided to all prisoners for shaving. Milat was given immediate medical attention and was X-rayed—all at public expense.
Milat told prison staff that he had taken precautions to ensure that the razor blades did not hurt him, which suggests that he wrapped them in material such as an adhesive tape. In other words, he wanted it only to appear that he was damaging himself. He claimed that this was part of a campaign to have an appeal heard by the High Court of Australia. Apparently he was upset about access to a gaol library and legal material, but the Department of Corrective Services believes that Milat may have had another more sinister motive. It appears his real agenda was to be moved to a medical facility or another prison from which he might attempt to escape. Milat's attempt to manipulate the gaol system did not succeed.
It is well known that those X-rays were discussed in this Chamber on 6 March 2001 and that they made their way into the public arena. That is a fact. In relation to Milat, for obvious reasons there is a clear case to be made for the public's right to know. However, it may come as a surprise to honourable members that Milat believes that, as a result of those X-rays becoming public, his personal rights have been impinged. He also believes he has been the subject of a major injustice—unbelievable as that may seem. We all must ask why it is that one of Australia's worst serial killers is so easily offended by the actions of authorities.
Milat is making a habit of being easily offended. As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald last month, he complained about air quality at the supermax. He said that he was having difficulty breathing, due to a flaw in the airconditioning—some of us would like to think of other circumstances in which he would have difficulty breathing—and was grabbing at his face in desperation, causing alleged minor abrasions. It will be no surprise for honourable members to hear that no other prisoner complained about air quality at the supermax. It is equally not surprising that the provision of an electric fan and the offer of medical help did nothing to please this inmate. Let me remind all honourable members that Milat requires special measures whenever he has to be moved within the prison system, for example, the use of ankle chains, handcuffs and a security belt to which handcuffs are secured. Any transfer between facilities requires extra lead and follow-up cars for additional security.
It is also worth noting that prisoners lose certain rights when they are sentenced to gaol for serious crimes: for example, visits are restricted to certain times of the day and on certain days of the week; they lose access to social security benefits; if incarcerated for more than one year they lose the right to vote in State elections and if incarcerated for five years they lose the right to vote in Federal elections; they lose the right to employment; and they are subject to random drug testing. Many would argue that they should lose more privileges. I will return to the subject of Milat.
Mr Armstrong: You are just giving him more kudos.
Mr AMERY: I am pleased to acknowledge those supportive comments from the Opposition. In May 2001 Milat formally complained to the New South Wales Ombudsman about his X-rays being made public. I am pleased to indicate to the House that on 17 July the Ombudsman found no prima facie evidence and said that he did not intend to take the matter any further. As a result of being rejected by the Ombudsman, this inmate began what is known in the system as jurisdiction shopping. In September 2001 he appealed to the New South Wales Privacy Commissioner, Mr Chris Puplick.
Mr Tink: Point of order: Why waste Parliament's time by making a mass murderer even more notorious by this display? Why glorify him? Why take it any further? Why give any more attention to his antics? Ignore him! Do not play into his hands.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Epping will resume his seat. This is the second occasion on which the honourable member for Epping has contravened the standing orders. The Chair will not extend any further latitude to him.
Mr AMERY: I think the honourable member's so-called point of order was a minute too early. In September 2001 Milat appealed to the New South Wales Privacy Commissioner, Mr Chris Puplick. Members of this Chamber would be interested to hear that it now appears likely that the Privacy Commissioner is taking up his case—I am not kidding; this is true. If the Privacy Commissioner takes up the case, and champions the call of this inmate, he may inadvertently bring the role of the Privacy Commissioner into disrepute. He could see himself playing a key role in handing over $40,000 in compensation to this unrepentant mass murderer under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act.
Everyone in this Chamber would agree that Milat's crimes were so barbaric and heinous that they will remain in the public's mind forever. Any suggestion of implementing a process that would pay Milat $40,000 should be rejected. I believe Milat does not have any privacy considerations; he gave away his right to privacy when he became Australia's most notorious serial killer and when he swallowed razor blades in an attempt to manipulate authorities. Any group or individual who tries to argue, however sincerely, that Milat has been disadvantaged is mistaken and misguided. I, and I am sure all members of this House, would urge the Privacy Commissioner to reconsider taking up Milat's case. This man deprived seven innocent young people of their right to life. It would seem that he swallowed the razor blades in an attempt to set up an escape scenario from a lower-security facility.
The families of Milat's victims are the people who have the right to feel aggrieved. I appeal to the New South Wales Privacy Commissioner to exercise commonsense and to show some compassion to the families and friends of the victims of that person. In addition, I have asked the Corrective Services Commissioner, Ron Woodham, to examine the rights to privacy of prisoners in New South Wales. When a serious offender's plot to avoid serving hard time is uncovered, it is in the public interest to know how that attempt was foiled. That information would also deter other prisoners from taking similar action. I have asked Mr Woodham to clarify this issue. If it is determined that we need to legislate to ensure that prisoners such as Milat do not get financial compensation, I would be more than pleased to take that proposition to Cabinet.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:40:36 : Update this page