Committee
The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Robin Chapple) in the chair; Hon Sue Ellery (Leader of the House) in charge of the bill.
Clause 1: Short title —
Comments and speeches from various members
Hon ALISON XAMON: I rise because I have a series of questions that I want to clarify and put on the record, specifically around the issue of the transparency that will be provided within the legislation. I want to ask about this within the scope of clause 1, because transparency provisions are referred to throughout the bill—most notably under clauses 13, 23 and 100. I would rather deal with the issue of transparency as a whole, and hopefully the minister is able to put more information on the record about this.
As I indicated in my contribution to the second reading debate, I particularly want to get some clarity around what sort of general information is going to be available to Parliament for oversight purposes. I have a series of questions that I would rather put in bits so that I —
Hon Sue Ellery interjected.
Hon ALISON XAMON: General information—yes, exactly. For starters, will the general information include the nature and the quality of the research that underlies the assessment and management of high-risk offenders?
Hon SUE ELLERY: In terms of general information available to Parliament and the public, and what the mechanisms will be in relation to freedom of information, I can advise that, currently, applications and proceedings under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act are conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, which is an exempt agency under the Freedom of Information Act. There is no right of access to the documents of an exempt agency under the Freedom of Information Act. Clause 11 of the bill provides for the Attorney General to be able to authorise the State Solicitor’s Office to conduct applications and proceedings under the bill. Unlike the DPP, the SSO is not established by statute, but is part of the Department of Justice. It is also not an exempt agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act. To place the SSO in the same position as the DPP when conducting applications and proceedings under the bill, clause 100 provides for the SSO to be an exempt agency, but only in relation to documents originating with or received by the SSO in connection with the functions under the bill. Clause 100 also ensures that the High Risk (Sexual and Violent) Offenders Board is made an exempt agency. This will ensure that its work does not provide a right of access under the Freedom of Information Act to documents that are not currently accessible in the context of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act. Under clause 13 of the bill, documents that are brought into existence, prepared, developed, made, received or obtained for the purposes of the bill or any application or proceeding under the bill, will not be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.
Given the anticipated role of the SSO in conducting these matters, and the bill’s provision for information sharing between supporting agencies under part 3, clause 13 is also necessary to ensure that a right of access is not provided under the Freedom of Information Act to documents that are not currently accessible in the context of the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act. However, none of these provisions will affect the application of the Freedom of Information Act to other documents. For example, if a supporting agency discloses a document under clause 25, that document will remain as accessible under the Freedom of Information Act in the hands of that supporting agency as it was before the agency disclosed it. Only the copy of the document in the hands of the recipient of the document will not be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act because of the provisions of the bill.
What I described as tier 2 orders—post-sentence supervision orders—are made by the Prisoners Review Board under the provisions of part 5A of the Sentence Administration Act 2003. Under the provisions of section 112 of the Sentence Administration Act, the Prisoners Review Board is required to table, before 1 October each year, a written report to the minister on, inter alia, in paragraph (ga), the number of prisoners who were subject of a report for the purposes of a PSSO under section 74(c) during the previous financial year; in paragraph (gb), the number of persons released subject to PSSOs, the operation of the act and relevant parts of the Sentencing Act 1995, so far as they relate to early release orders and PSSOs, and the activities of community corrections officers in relation to those orders during the previous financial year.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I had a series of questions about the way FOI was going to function, and I would also like to get a bit more detail about the general information that is going to be made available to Parliament. The question I had asked, specifically, was whether the sort of information that could be made available to Parliament would include, for example, the nature and the quality of the research underlying the assessment and management of high-risk offenders.
Hon SUE ELLERY: I am advised that there is no specific provision requiring specific reports to be made available to Parliament. Of course, if parliamentary questions are asked about the functions of the board, the board would provide advice to the Attorney General about what it considers it might be able to provide, bearing in mind the kind of sensitive information it might have before it. But if the member is looking for something in the bill before us that requires the board to provide certain material to the Parliament on a regular basis, there is no such provision.
Hon ALISON XAMON: Thank you, minister, but that is not what I am trying to clarify. I am trying to clarify the scope of the general information that may be available for Parliament to receive. Through parliamentary questions is a good example of the way that information would be available. I am aware that, for good reason, a lot of the information would not be available, for reasons that the minister has previously outlined. I am trying to get an idea of the scope that is available, and the general information. Specifically, I will list what I want to know, so that the minister is clear. I want to know whether Parliament would be able to be made aware of the nature and quality of the research underlying the assessment and management of high-risk offenders; the best practice standards and guidelines applicable to agencies that are dealing with high-risk offenders; the information about resourcing, service provision and training relevant to agencies dealing with high-risk offenders; and the number of people at any particular time who are subject to each of tier 1 and tier 2. I am specifically interested to know whether we will be able to find out, if we ask, how many of those people in either tier 1 or tier 2 are children, and also how many are potentially captured under the mentally unfit provisions. I appreciate that I have asked for a lot of content all at once, so I am happy to break that down in a more manageable way, but that is the sort of information that I am particularly interested in ensuring that Parliament can potentially access, and I would like to get an idea whether those are the sorts of information that would be available to Parliament upon questioning.
Hon SUE ELLERY: While the advisers are looking into how they might assist, I will just repeat back to the honourable member: she asked about the nature of research, what the best practice guidelines are, information about resourcing and training of those agencies dealing with high-risk or dangerous sexual offenders, the numbers in tier 1 or tier 2, how many of those might be children, and how many of those might be mentally unfit.
Hon Alison Xamon: That is correct.
Hon SUE ELLERY: If the member will bear with me, I will see whether we can obtain that information.
The advice I am provided with is that we can see no reason why, if questions of that nature—in the list that I read out—were asked in the Parliament, the member would not be provided with an answer. The board would be requested to provide advice to the Attorney General on whether it might not be comfortable releasing elements of the question the member might have asked, but we see no obstacle to Parliament being provided with the nature of the things the member has outlined.
Hon ALISON XAMON: Thank you, minister. That is helpful. I want to clarify whether the minister would expect, with the sort of information that I was articulating, that it would be the latter point—the number of people at any particular time—and specifically whether there are children or mentally impaired accused people who might prove to be problematic. Is there a concern that that might too easily identify individuals?
Hon SUE ELLERY: The only obstacle that we can envisage when the board might take the view that it would not be appropriate to provide that information is if, in the nature of what was being revealed, it identified or could be used to identify somebody. That will depend on the particular circumstances. There might be a case of such notoriety that providing the answer to that question would clearly identify that that is person X, and the board might take the view that that is not appropriate, particularly if the person is mentally unfit or a child. It is a bit difficult to give a definitive answer. The best advice I have is that what would guide whether that information could be revealed would include, for example, the extent to which it might identify somebody.
Comments and speeches from various members
Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, pursuant to standing orders.