The Hon. JOHN RYAN " The Opposition supports the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (Prisoners) Bill.However, we would not be doing our duty as parliamentarians if we failed to refer to some important issues regarding the bill's origins and the involvement of Mr Puplick.
Additionally, I believe this bill seeks to reduce scrutiny of the Department of Corrective Services, and I can make a better than good case for increasing, not decreasing, such scrutiny.
This bill is nothing less than an outrageous stunt by either the administration of the Department of Corrective Services or the Minister for Corrective Services. It seeks to address a problem that simply does not exist.
The bill's purpose is to prevent the payment of any form of compensation to Mr Ivan Milat or Bilal Skaf as if that were an imminent possibility. The truth is that Parliament and the community have been misled that such an outcome was likely or even legally possible.
It is not possible.The Minister has never pointed out that not one single cent in compensation has been paid to anyone for a breach of privacy. Who would dream I suspect that Mr Puplick certainly would not of awarding damages or any sort of compensation to Ivan Milat or Bilal Skaf? I cannot imagine that that would happen."
Justice Action: That means being sent to prison and harmed is a part of the ruling class punishment regime which it's not? The judge sent them to prison as punishment and now John Ryan has expressed that now they are in prison that they can be damaged at will and not compensated for such damage?
That is also a crime. If such crimes in prison exist then what example are they setting for the wider community? Don't go to prison at any lengths and at all costs after the commission of any crime, otherwise those people will be mistreated and not compensated.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Why is he investigating it?
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: "There is an enormous difference between investigating a matter and awarding compensation.
Fact No. 1: Mr Puplick is not legally permitted to pay anyone compensation; he cannot make such a decision. Fact
No. 2: If Mr Puplick investigates a matter no compensation can be paid. People who wish to make a complaint about a privacy matter must, before going to Mr Puplick, elect to pursue that matter in one of two ways.
First, they may choose to have Mr Puplick investigate it, at which point they become ineligible to receive a cent in compensation I cannot ascertain whether Mr Milat went to Mr Puplick because he would in no way breach Mr Milat's privacy. But if Mr Milat asked Mr Puplick to investigate anything, that would be the end of any opportunity for compensation it would vaporise; it would no longer exist.
Under New South Wales privacy laws, payment of compensation is possible only if Mr Milat asks the Department of Corrective Services to investigate his privacy matter. If, having conducted that investigation, the Department of Corrective Services were minded to offer Mr Milat some compensation, that money would be paid to him. I cannot imagine that the Department of Corrective Services would ever be minded to pay compensation to Mr Milat or to Bilal Skaf.
Justice Action: 1.) I cannot imagine why under any privacy laws if a person asked the Privacy Commission to investigate a privacy breach and it were found in the complainants favour why the Privacy Commission would not pay compensation? That has to be flawed legislation.
2.) I cannot imagine the Department of Corrective Services investigating itself and finding itself guilty of a breach of privacy. It just wouldn't happen, ever. And especially in the case of any unpopular person. Surely the reason for a Privacy Commission even if that commission has flawed compensation for damages payouts, at least the matter could be looked into and privacy breaches by the noble cause corrupt DCS would cease.
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: In case what I say is misrepresented, of course I accept that the payment of even dime to Mr Milat, his family, Mr Skaf or members of his family would be totally inappropriate and a travesty of justice. But that is not to say that the Privacy Commissioner does not have an appropriate role to investigate the Department of Corrective Services with regard to privacy.
Justice Action: No! They were sent to prison for punishment not to be punished if they were damaged under the heading Duty of Care they should also be compensated for such damage. So that would not be a travesty of any justice as Ryan has suggested here that is bullshit! The law doesn't maintain political posturing in relation to damages.
2.As well as the fact that the Privacy Commissioner and independent inquiry should investigate the noble corrupt DCS.
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: Honourable members will remember that some months ago on behalf of this Parliament I was given the responsibility of undertaking an inquiry into the increase in the On a couple of occasions the committee wanted advice direct from the source and sought to go into the prisons to obtain evidence from inmates who had written to the committee.
On one occasion the committee was threatened with non-admittance to a prison because the department was worried about the privacy of inmates. [? using the privacy Act against the prisoners in a totally corrupt manor.]
On one occasion the department will use the privacy of inmates to prevent scrutiny and on other occasions it will use it as a weapon, as it has in this legislation. The committee immediately contacted the Inspector General of the Department of Corrective Services [who was subsequently removed from office] and asked him how he gained entry to gaols.
The committee then asked the Department of Corrective Services to make the same arrangements for the committee as those that pertained to the inspector general. Oddly enough, the committee was then allowed entry to the prisons.
The fact that people are incarcerated does not mean that the community no longer has a responsibility to treat them with dignity.
Of course we do. As a committed [Noble Cause Corrupt] Christian I believe that every single individual, regardless of their behaviour, is owed the dignity of being a creature of God. [But not compensated for any damages caused by Satan] Of course, it is important for them to suffer punishment for any evil deeds they do [or were framed for] particularly Ivan Milat and [not] Bilal Skaf but I do not believe they lose all rights to be treated with dignity [Even if they are not compensated for damages caused to them by DCS. In other words people can go to prison for doing harm but the STATE cannot? Why? Because the STATE is Noble Cause Corrupt!]
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I refer to comments made by Mr Puplick in response to this bill that deserve to be put on the parliamentary record. He said:In the first instance, the Bill is unnecessary, as the Government knows. The Premier has suggested on radio that the Bill is to stop people like Ivan Milat from receiving compensation "if the Privacy Commissioner upholds a complaint they make".
As I have stated before, I have no power to award compensation in relation to privacy complaints investigated by me. Neither the Premier nor the Minister for Corrective Services seems to understand that even if I uphold a complaint, no compensation can be awarded to the complainant.
That was emphasised by Mr Puplick. He continued: The awarding of damages by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal only relates to matters which have first been the subject of an Internal Review under the Act. An internal review is conducted by the Department of Corrective Services, not by the Privacy Commissioner.
[As stated before that means nothing because the Department of Corrective Services would not do a proper internal review and find itself guilty of a breach.]
The Hon.JOHN RYAN: He further stated: This is an entirely separate process to investigations of complaints by my Office. Complainants must choose up front which option they want: an Internal Review with the option later to go to the Tribunal, or an investigation and conciliation by the Privacy Commissioner.
People who seek to have their complaints investigated by me cannot seek compensation via the Tribunal. [Thats got to be Noble Cause Corruption in the highest order] I have attached a flowchart to explain the legislation for those who still think otherwise.
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: He further stated: There is to date no precedent for the awarding of compensation for a privacy breach. Not a single dollar has been awarded by the Tribunal for any breach of privacy.
Even if a prisoner could prove their privacy has been breached, it would be extremely difficult to show that they had suffered the type of damage for which compensation might be ordered: they have to prove physical, financial or psychological harm was suffered because of the breach of their privacy. Suggestions to the contrary that the awarding of compensation is somehow straightforward or automatic are just a synthetic concoction by those who do not understand the law.
Or I would add, choose not to understand the law.
[The law of Noble Cause Corruption. If a person had their medical records sent to the corporate media including their X-rays surely that would cause them to suffer psychological harm.]
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: He further stated: For the further information of the House, Mr Puplick later explained: Furthermore, Ivan Milat has stated publicly he has not made any claim for compensation.
Even if he did make a claim in the future, an application could only be made to the Tribunal if the Department of Corrective Services first agreed to the lodgment of an out-of-time Internal Review application. If they have not agreed to this and I presume the Minister knows if they have or not then Milat is not even eligible to go to the Tribunal, let alone seek compensation.
Medical Records: Alex Mitchell's lost world
Perhaps we can get your medical report and spew it around publicly so you can see how it feels. But surely we do not have to go that far. And of course we are law-abiding citizens and I should think it would be enough to remind you of your ethics to report at all.
Just wipe your arse on Ivan again Minister?
Mr Amery Minister for Corrective services has a problem with finding a toilet roll to wipe his bottom. Justice Action is appalled at the attacks by Amery and others in parliament on Ivan Milat's right to privacy and their attacks on the Privacy Commissioner and his office.
Courtesy of Parliament House Sydney 5 December 2000
The Chook: Why the little chicken act by the department?
Why does DCS say to the Parliament that there must be legislation to prevent something that legally cannot happen and is not going to happen? I do not think it was an accident that this legislation was introduced a weekend or two after the publication of Ivan Milat's medical records.
Related:
Royal Commissions a wast of public money?
Upper House Liberal MP John Ryan has claimed in Parliament there is clear evidence that serious levels of corruption exist throughout the administration of the department. Mr Ryan outlined allegations yesterday of a governor blowing the cover of an inmate who was acting as an informant for the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).
ARE YOU INNOCENT?
The NSW government has finally appointed somebody (Justice John Nader) to head up its Innocence Panel and has produced leaflets and forms for people convicted of serious crimes (eg murder) to apply for DNA testing if they believe it may help prove their innocence. You can get the info by phoning 1300 881 717 or writing to the panel at GPO Box 45 Sydney NSW 2001.
NSW Department of Corrective Services attack right to privacy
Corrective Services Minister Richard Amery has a problem attacking prisoners right to privacy.It seems to us that a civil society is best served when social justice laws are applied to all people regardless of their circumstances. Once government starts making exceptions which disadvantage certain groups and individuals, such laws are meaningless.
Litigants are drowning: in the High Court
There were so many self represented litigants appearing in the High Court that more than half of its registry staff's time was taken up in dealing with them. The "go it alone" litigants have to take on tasks well above their qualified league causing them stress. This growing problem cannot be left unchecked.
Everyone wants to get out of 'jail' but 'Framed' wants life: Rotten Ron on the ropes On 2 May 2002, Justice Action received a faxed letter from Manager of DCS Operations Support Branch saying that, in his view, articles in Framed edition #42 'lack balance and integrity' and he is therefore 'not prepared to recommend this issue of Framed for placement in to correctional centre libraries.' Prisoners and those concerned about prisoner issues have very few sources of information.
Methadone addicts formed within: 'NSW Prisons'
The New South Wales Opposition has accused the State Government of turning jailed heroin users into Methadone addicts.
Murder charge first for DNA data bank link, but not the same as solving the murder Mass DNA testing of prisoners has [allegedly] led to the first NSW case of a person being charged with a previously unsolved murder as a result of a controversial gene-matching data bank.
Medical Records: Alex Mitchell's lost world
Perhaps we can get your medical report and spew it around publicly so you can see how it feels. But surely we do not have to go that far. And of course we are law-abiding citizens and I should think it would be enough to remind you of your ethics to report at all.
Prisoners can prove innocence for $20?
Les Kennedy Daily Telegraph reported today that" Prisoners who believe that DNA will prove they were wrongly convicted will have the chance to prove their innocence for a mere $20 administration fee. The move comes 20 months after NSW inmates were asked to provide DNA for comparison with a databank of DNA from unsolved crime scenes for possible convictions.
NSW opposition pledges review of detention laws
A spokesperson for Justice Action Ms Anal Advice said " NSW Prisons are a sex offence if you have been raped, bashed and squatted down to be strip searched. People should be diverted from going there at all material times".
Civil libertarians condemn planned changes to prisoners' privacy rights The New South Wales Government is using a recent case involving [framed] serial killer Ivan Milat to justify its decision to remove the privacy rights of prisoners. But really just another attack on Ivan Milat from Parliament House.
RESTORING TRUE JUSTICE:
Australian prisons are fast becoming the new asylums of the third millennium. The prison industry is booming, while Australia spends far less on mental health services than similar countries.
The punishment: Is the 'crime'
The punishment is the crime according to retired chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia Justice Alistair Nicholson. "Smacking a child ought to be seen as assault".
Mr. & Mrs. Mandatory Sentencing
Well congratulations to the bride and groom. Could you please be upstanding and raise your glasses for Mr. And Mrs. Mandatory.
Just wipe your arse on Ivan again Minister?
Mr Amery Minister for Corrective services has a problem with finding a toilet roll to wipe his bottom. Justice Action is appalled at the attacks by Amery and others in parliament on Ivan Milat's right to privacy and their attacks on the Privacy Commissioner and his office.
NSW prisons - primary industry bailed up!
In many quiet regional centres around NSW there is a new primary industry shaping up. It has something to do with Bail but not with bales. The minister for Agriculture Richard Amery who also has the prisons portfolio is now committed to farming prisoners.
NSW Parliament Bitter Pills To Swallow?
One delusion pill: So people who investigate their own mistakes make sure there was no mistake or someone else made the mistake. Perhaps you're not biased and you will be honest about it.
The Government is likely to abolish the Inspector General of Corrective Services position The Mulawa inspection report recommendations below strictly illustrate how important he is.
Black Nexus
The Separation of Powers Doctrine is nowcontaminated witharangeofcolours, now leaving us with a black shirt on a once blue bridge that crossed that thin blue line. The 'Amery and Woodham show'.
Prison Mind Games-Do they exist?
Directives are given inside the prison system that are not consistent with the law in NSW. And not in the good interests of the health and well being of the prisoners.
