Law Enforcement And National Security (Assumed Identities) Amendment (Corrective Services) Bill

Debate resumed from 22 September.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [4.51 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Law Enforcement and National Security (Assumed Identities) Amendment (Corrective Services) Bill but wishes to put on record some concerns about the bill. The Minister for Police in his second reading speech spoke of the need for the introduction of this bill. Essentially he argued that officers of the Department of Corrective Services who were within the State Investigative and Security Group [SISG] undertook such activities in their investigations that would require them in certain instances to be entitled to assumed identities.

The SISG is under the direction of the assistant commissioner, Mr Ron Woodham, and has been for some time. It undertakes investigations in relation to inmates across a whole spectrum of alleged serious misconduct. The SISG works in a similar way to certain units within the Police Service and certain groups within agencies such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It certainly has an investigative role and in certain instances the use of assumed identities may well be of assistance.

I understand that, notwithstanding the fact that the bill has only just been introduced into this House, for some years the SISG has operated in a way that permits officers to have assumed identities. The Minister did not make any mention of how they had managed to achieve that thus far, but nevertheless this bill seeks to ratify or endorse the
Page 1686
activities that have gone on to date. Under the Carr Labor Government the prison population increased from just over 5,000 in 1995 to more than 7,500 in the past few months, resulting in increased potential for the commission of a range of offences within prisons. Many would be drug-related offences and many would relate to the importation of drugs both within and without the prison system.

Of course, other serious offences can be organised from within gaols and correctional facilities. The Government has made a number of attempts, in direct response to calls by the Coalition, to sharpen its act in providing measures in an effort to prevent inmates from carrying out criminal activity. In 1995 when I was the shadow minister for corrective services I pointed out to the Government, through press releases and correspondence, that there were no checks on visitors to inmates in New South Wales prisons, and in other facilities the checks on visitors were hopeless.

People with criminal records could visit inmates, something that still occurs under the current system, although I acknowledge that the system has improved. Measures are now in place at the new Silverwater complex to check visitors but, nevertheless, most of the action taken by the Government thus far has been in response to Coalition calls rather than proactive. This bill is probably the only proactive initiative of the Carr Government in the past five years to address security issues and it comes at a time when ICAC has handed down a number of reports indicating that major problems still exist within the New South Wales prison system.

The third report tabled in June is entitled "Investigation into the Department of Corrective Services: Betrayal of Trust: The activities of two correctional officers". The earlier two reports were tabled in the preceding months. The reports stated that the Department of Corrective Services has been working quite well with ICAC to try to address some of the shortcomings of the procedures in place within the Department of Corrective Services for the betterment of the culture within Corrective Services.

The bill is an interesting move by the Carr Government, bearing in mind that the Government came to office in 1995 with a policy that was not perhaps all that well thought out. At that time Labor was not expecting to win the 1995 election. The 1995 policy document of the Labor Party required the Government to do certain things to impose better checks and balances within Corrective Services. I will return in a moment to the initiative proposed in the Labor Party policy document. It is interesting that this bill relating to assumed identities for the SISG seems to have been drafted without any new checks and balances to ensure that the system is not abused.

We know from recent ICAC reports that there is abuse of processes and procedures within the Department of Corrective Services. The Government acknowledged that some years ago but failed to act to ensure that within the Department of Corrective Services those procedures are improved to the point where the public can rely on the correct processes being undertaken within the department. The Minister’s assertions during the second reading speech indicate that he was exploring the need for assumed identities. The Minister stated:

The Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service recognised that the use of assumed identities is essential to the success of some types of investigations, including, but not restricted to, undercover operations.

That is certainly true. To the extent that corrections institutions have to address the same issues, and perhaps contain even more skilled exponents of criminality, there is clearly an argument that the provision of assumed identities is a reasonable course of action for corrective services officers, particularly the SISG. The Minister for Police went on to state:

The royal commission final report also pointed to the need for greater accountability in response to demands from the courts who are more actively scrutinising evidence presented and the methods used to obtain it.

The Minister was addressing the evidentiary aspects. We do not dispute that much greater scrutiny is needed of activities of agencies that have a right to behave in a way which the average person would consider to be outside the norm - for example, using assumed identities. In spite of the range of problems within the Department of Corrective Services, some of which have been highlighted in a report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC], the Government has still failed to address one of its own fundamental 1995 election promises. In 1995 the Government promised that it would establish an inspector general’s position in Corrective Services. In a wonderful display of the Government’s support for its own actions, the Minister for Corrective Services came into this Chamber on 23 April 1997 and stated with a flourish:

The creation of the office of inspector-general honours another of the Government’s election promises.

Page 1687

In what must be regarded as an interesting speech, bearing in mind the Government’s failure to make the appointment during the previous two years, the Minister went on to state:

It is imperative that the New South Wales correctional system be equipped with a comprehensive complaint-handling system which is both efficient and effective in order to maintain public confidence in the way our correctional centres are being managed.

Despite this so-called honouring of an election promise by the passing of legislation, and despite undertakings given by the Minister for Corrective Services in his second reading speech that an inspector general "will also enter into arrangements with the Independent Commission Against Corruption regarding the handling of matters that involve possible misconduct by an officer of the Department of Corrective Services", indicating that the Minister had already recognised that officers in the Department of Corrective Services may well have been engaging in inappropriate illegal conduct, nothing has been done. The report to which I refer was published in June 1999. The Minister has had the benefit of approximately five years experience in the corrective services portfolio, so he should have known all about it. The report is entitled, "Investigation into the Department of Corrective Services Third Report: Betrayal of Trust: The activities of two correctional officers" and it contained damning statements about what is wrong with the Department of Corrective Services.

Mr Debus: It is the only prison system in the world that has a corrupt officer!

Mr HAZZARD: Under the Minister’s handling, the number of corrupt officers has increased because he has failed to take the appropriate action that he promised to take. He took the credit and now he must take the blame, and it is fair that he should do so. The Minister should explain why he has failed to do what he said he would do. The Minister suggested that it might be the only system with corrupt officers. Of course, that is not so. However, the number of corrupt officers is possibly on the increase because of the Minister’s failure to carry out the Government’s policy that was not opposed by the Opposition.

In April 1997 in this House the Minister made sure that the world - particularly the people of New South Wales - knew that this State would have an inspector general, and that matters would improve in the handling of corrective services. The Minister indicated that the Government would introduce accountability, and checks and balances. The Minister gave people the hope of a better culture existing within corrective services. However, two years later, the ICAC report shows that there is not a better culture in existence at all. I read from the ICAC report at page 86 where the commissioner stated:

Maintaining the integrity of correctional work requires a healthy corporate culture and the support of all employees, who must set a good example to inmates, to each other and the community. The culture needs to be intolerant of any employee who lacks personal integrity and whose personal goals are inconsistent with the Department’s corporate mission.

The commissioner also went on to state at page 87:

However, eradicating corruption that is uncovered, while difficult, is still only half the battle. The Department also needs to change the climate in which corruption has occurred.

What has the Minister done? One could almost say that the level of corruption that has been displayed by the Minister and by this Government would encourage corruption within the department. I say that because the Minister said in this House, in conjunction with other Government members, that the Government would change the culture by very quickly appointing an inspector general. That happened in April 1997 and, for the information of the House, it is now 20 October 1999. I ask the Minister: What happened to the appointment of the inspector general?

Mr Debus: That is beside the point that you are making.

Mr HAZZARD: That is the best that the Minister can offer as a reply. He cannot say that he has complied with what he saw as an essential component in changing the culture within the Department of Corrective Services. This indicates a systemic failure by the Government. This Government is arrogant and prepared to ignore its own legislation. The Act was proclaimed on 30 October 1998 and it took 18 months for anything to occur. Now, but for ten days, another 12 months has elapsed. The Government has introduced a bill that will confer greater powers on Corrective Services officers but fails to address the systemic issues of corruption and the way in which Corrective Services officers go about their work.

I wonder why that would be the case. I suggest to the House that the Minister and the Carr Government do not actually want the public to know any more than they need to know. They provide information on a need-to-know basis about what is going on in Corrective Services and that is an appalling indictment on a Government that has reached the stage of stupidity. It has gone past being just arrogant and is now being arrogant and stupid
Page 1688
because it is not in the best interests of the community to deny the appointment of an inspector general.

The Opposition wants to know why this Government is prepared to confer extensive new powers on the SISG but has failed to deliver on its fundamental promise to this House and to the community to introduce measures of accountability that, if properly implemented, would have guaranteed or at least given hope that there would be checks and balances in place within Corrective Services. I acknowledge that other agencies have a modest role in checking the activities of Corrective Services. I have already referred to ICAC having undertaken some very worthwhile investigations into the activities of various sections of the Department of Corrective Services, but that fails to address the fundamental issue of this Government’s failure to act in accordance with a promise given to this House and to the people of New South Wales that there would be greater scrutiny, greater accountability, better mechanisms, and improved processes for people to actually have their complaints heard; and an investigation undertaken of issues within the Department of Corrective Services.

For that reason, and because the people of New South Wales would demand of the Opposition that it do so, we demand that the Government carry through on its promise of accountability. I will not waste the time of the Legislative Assembly by moving an amendment, because historically such amendments are rarely agreed to. In the period after I was appointed shadow minister, the Minister for Corrective Services did agree to the odd amendment. He deserves credit in that regard, more so than the majority of his colleagues whose level of arrogance defies imagination. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that unless it is obvious that an amendment would be agreed to by all parties, the Minister would not agree with it. Nor would he agree with our proposed amendment in this instance.

The Coalition will move an amendment in the upper House. The Minister might as well talk to us, because the crossbenchers are in agreement with our amendment. The crossbench and the Coalition want to see an inspector-general appointed; we want a guarantee of integrity as far as is practicable in the Department of Corrective Services. This legislation will not see the light of day until the Minister gives a guarantee to the Coalition by appointing an inspector-general. An amendment will be moved by either the Coalition or a crossbench member, such as the Hon. Richard Jones, whose concerns are identical to ours.

The Coalition will either support the crossbench in its endeavours or will collaboratively ensure that the crossbench is fully briefed on our proposal. No additional powers will be granted to the Department of Corrective Services until the Minister appoints an inspector-general. The Coalition proposes to move an amendment requiring that this legislation be not proclaimed until the inspector-general’s position is filled; until the Minister has honoured his April 1997 commitment to the House; until he has honoured his 1995 election pledge; and until he has given the people an inspector-general who can investigate and guarantee improvement to the processes and integrity within Corrective Services. If the Minister fails to address those issues, the people could draw some solid conclusions about why the Minister does not want to provide what he said, initially, was necessary. On 23 April 1997 the Minister said:

It is imperative that the New South Wales correctional system be equipped with a comprehensive complaint-handling system which is both efficient and effective in order to maintain public confidence in the way our correctional centres are being managed.

On behalf of the people of New South Wales the Opposition is asking the Minister to honour his commitment. The Opposition will support the bill, although we have some concerns about Corrective Services officers having access to assumed identities in certain circumstances. We will support the bill if we are assured that someone is keeping a check on it. The Police Service has the Police Integrity Commission. The Minister should ensure that his promise is kept. I do not dispute that the Minister is generally perceived as being more honourable than most of his colleagues, who are tarred with the brush of arrogance, stupidity, superciliousness and self-interest.

The Minister should now step away from his colleagues and honour the promises he made to the people of New South Wales. I remind him that only 10 per cent of inmates undergo a urinalysis test each week; the Opposition wants to know why. Approximately 90 per cent of inmates have drug problems and maybe the inspector-general can tell us why that is so. Why has the Minister allowed those situations to continue? Why is the Minister continuing to allow the officers to get away with that? The Opposition will not oppose the legislation, but has serious questions to ask about why the Minister failed to introduce his promised system of integrity.

Where is the inspector-general? Have the advertisements been placed? If so, why has no-one been appointed? Those simple questions have
Page 1689
brought the Minister and his legislation unstuck. Until the Opposition is satisfied with the answers, and until the Minister honours those obligations, the crossbench and the Coalition will take steps in the other place to ensure that the legislation sits on the backburner. The Carr Government must step down from its arrogant platform and honour its promises. The appointment of an inspector-general will provide accountability and checks and balances in Corrective Services.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.