Resumed from 16 April 2002.
HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [12.19 pm]: This Bill contains a mixture of amendments to the Prisons Act 1981, some of which the Greens (WA) think are okay and some of which we will be opposing. The second reading speech indicates what this Bill is seeking to achieve: the banning of certain visitors to prisons, dealing with the issue of biometric identification of visitors, visitors' declarations and the early discharge of prisoners. I do not believe the clause that deals with banning visitors to prisons is a substantial amendment. It is a reasonable proposition that would enable a ban from all prisons to be imposed on a visitor for a prescribed period; I do not have a problem with that proposition. I will ask the minister about the statistics that predicate the argument for these proposed amendments when I talk about biometric identification.
The Greens (WA) will oppose the clause on biometric identification for a number of reasons. In the second reading speech Hon Nick Griffiths said that the intention to prescribe the use of biometric ID in regulations will enhance security. I do not accept that it will achieve that outcome. There are other ways to enhance security in prisons, if that is necessary. I have a number of questions on which I seek a response from the Minister for Racing and Gaming. There is no definition of biometric identification in the Bill. From debate that occurred in the other place, I understand it is likely to be based on facial recognition.
Hon Nick Griffiths: We don't pay attention to what happens down there; it doesn't exist.
Hon GIZ WATSON: No, but I am trying to glean some information from somewhere, because the second reading speech did not give me much to go on.
Hon Nick Griffiths: I tried to keep it short.
Hon GIZ WATSON: There is a balance between keeping it short and giving enough information on which to make a judgment.
I ask the minister to clarify whether the regulations will enable the use of facial recognition technology. I note that the technology includes palm prints, retina identification, fingerprints and so on. The second reading speech referred to the advent of new technologies to more accurately identify persons, such as palm prints, fingerprints and other biometric means. That is a description in the Bill of the technologies envisaged; however, my criticism is that a definition of the technologies and whether they are limited should be included in the Bill rather than in regulations.
Will the broad range of identification techniques include DNA or will the regulations include it as a possibility? I presume that will be spelt out when the regulations come on for debate. However, I ask the minister whether he envisages DNA as a form of identification. I am aware that prisoners are required currently to provide a sample of DNA. Will that requirement be extended to visitors?
Another question I have is on the cost of the implementation of a biometric identification system. In the other place the Attorney General was unable to provide even an estimate of the cost. Will the minister indicate to this place whether that information is now available?
The second reading debate in the other place alluded to a concern that people had used false identification to gain access to prisons. What statistics are there to back up that claim? How many people have gained access by using false identification? Was the use of false identification by visitors or by staff?
Hon Nick Griffiths: It appears to me that somebody who had gained access to a prison by using false identification would have succeeded, in that the person was not discovered.
Hon GIZ WATSON: Very clever! I am interested to know what evidence the minister has of that; otherwise we could go round in circles on that issue.
If biometric identification is used, what provision is there in the Bill to prevent visitors from providing false document identification? Ultimately, somebody could have false identification matched to a biometric identity. This Bill therefore would not take identification of those visitors much further down the track.
I have a series of questions to which I would like some answers. Does the Department of Justice have independent research findings that have tested the effectiveness of biometric identification systems in reducing drug trafficking and prisoner escapes; and, if not, what source is the department using to justify trialling this new system in Western Australia? In recent years is there evidence to suggest that there has been an increase in the number of prisoners who have used false identification to escape from maximum security prisons; and, if not, what is the most common form of escape from a maximum security prison? In what way are prisoners without identification able to get through current security? Is there evidence to date that suggests prison visitors have entered a maximum or medium-security prison with false ID; and, if so, how many and how were they discovered to be using false ID?
How will the effectiveness of a biometric identification system be measured? If the biometric identification system does not perform as expected, will the department continue its usage? I am aware that the biometric identification system currently is being trialled at Hakea Prison. What security measures will be taken to eliminate staff as a potential source of drugs for prisoners? How long will the trial continue and how will it be assessed; that is, what criteria are being used to assess the system currently in operation there? If the minister would like to have those questions in writing, I have them with me and can make them available to him.
I turn now to an article published in the Alternative Law Journal by James Godfrey titled "Technological Assault on visitors to prisons", which examined New South Wales prisons. The article states -
At present, there are three conventional forms of identification: something you have, like a card; something you know, like a password or PIN; and finally something which you are, like your fingerprints, voice, image, or any other identity trait.
One of the problems of taking fingerprints and photographs is that these acts are associated with criminality - indeed any intrusive identification system will be seen as such.
'Biometrics are technologies which automatically verify one's identity based on physiological characteristics;' biometric identification includes retina scans, voice recognition and hand geometry. It has been used at such diverse places as a Los Angeles sperm bank, San Francisco International Airport and a childcare centre at the Lotus Corporation in the USA. One company (Biometric Tracking LLC) even requires people to enrol their fingerprints in a database in order to gain access to its web site.
There is a large and booming market for this technology. In June last year I received a fax, unrequested, headed "MEDIA OPPORTUNITY - WAR ON TERRORISM". It reads -
EVENT:First Australian media briefing and demonstration of advanced biometric facial recognition technology used to identify terrorists, drug traffickers and paedophiles It was an opportunity to view and be impressed by this new technology for which the international market is obviously booming. James Godfrey's article refers to biometric identification in NSW prisons -
. . . On 8 August 1996, the Department of Corrective Services (DCS) implemented a BIS at Maitland prison. By the end of 1996, it had been introduced to prisons at Goulburn and Lithgow, as well as the Remand Centre, the Special Purpose Centre and the Reception and Induction Centre at Long Bay. On 4 July 1997, the largest application of the system to date in NSW began at the new $85 million Metropolitan Reception and Remand Centre (MRC) at Silverwater - the largest prison in Oceania, currently holding nearly 900 prisoners. Although the BIS was originally intended only to be used for those visiting maximum security prisons, there is a major problem in relation to remand centres. The MRRC is deemed maximum security and yet many of the people detained there are merely awaiting trial for minor offences.
The only argument in the second reading speech for introducing such an identity system was that it would enhance security. Under the heading "Problems and objections to the use of biometric identification" the article states -
Security
The supposed impetus for the introduction of the BIS was that it would improve prison security - specifically following the escape of the late George Savvas in 1996. If prison officers are unable to detect a prisoner changing clothes and donning a wig during a visit, then surely there is little chance they can ensure they press the right buttons or check that the face in front of them matches the face on their monitors. A further issue relating to security is that the BIS is being used arbitrarily. Prison officers, legal visitors and many other people are gaining access into prisons without having to submit themselves to fingerprint scanning, inevitably reducing the supposed security the BIS provides.Indigenous issuesbr /> The Aboriginal Legal Services have reported some Indigenous women are making the difficult choice not to visit family members rather than allow themselves to be scanned for fear of having this information shared with other government departments. More importantly, their traditional beliefs necessitate they leave no image or record behind when they die and they are unwilling to take the chance they have involuntarily done so when scanned. Statements are currently being obtained from various Indigenous peoples to enable their beliefs to be respected and taken into account.
The minister might like to comment on that. Under the subtitle "Security of information" Godfrey says -
Due to genuinely held fears that the BIS may be interfaced to police, social security or immigration computers many visitors may avoid prisons. Indeed, on 3 September at the MRRC, some visitors preferred to forfeit their visit and chat with the writer and others while other members of their family went inside. The procedure led John Akister from the Council of Civil Liberties to accuse DCS of 'attempting to assert powers that even the police did not have . . . imposing measures which were regarded as measures only applied to criminals'.
Delays
Since the introduction of the BIS, there have been many reported incidents of extensive delays in the processing of visitors. An example occurred on 19 July 1997, when all of the visitors to Long Bay were turned away because of problems with the biometrics identification equipment.The article states further on -
. . . visitors had had to wait on occasions for up to three and a half hours to get into the Centre and up to two hours to get out.I think Hon Peter Foss said that if this system is to be used, we need some assurance that it will not cause those delays.
The article suggests some alternatives to biometric identification of visitors as follows -
The system DCS introduced into the prisons serves no purpose other than to further criminalise and harass friends and families of inmates. Even though very few prisoners actually escape through the visiting area of NSW prisons (only three in the last five years), the small number of cases could be eradicated by the introduction of any one of these different mechanisms:
_If biometric fingerprint identification must be used, then surely to meet security needs, only prisoners' identification needs to be taken. Every person exiting the prison could be scanned and any print matching a prisoner's would cause an alarm to sound. No permanent record would be maintained and there would be minimal privacy concerns for visitors.Godfrey concludes -
Clearly the imposition of the biometrics identification system currently in use throughout the maximum security prisons of NSW cannot be justified. It is intrusive, expensive and ineffective. It serves no purpose other than to further intimidate visitors and ultimately may damage the essential links that prisoners have with the outside world. It must go and the multitude of problems that similar systems may cause to individuals in our society must be examined in detail.That accurately summarises my major concerns about facilitating the introduction of such a system. It seems at odds with the Attorney General's attempt to improve justice outcomes in prisons; namely, to reduce the number of people in prisons. I acknowledge that other parts of the Bill seek to achieve that aim, such as the ability to increase the number of days available for early discharge. The Greens welcome that change. However, one of the things clearly identified in our prison system is that an outcome in which prisoners serve their sentences and do not reoffend is assisted through maintaining strong links and commitments to their families. If we are about to impose a system that will harass and impinge on the privacy rights of visitors to prisons, it is likely to negatively impact on families who are seeking to keep connections with people in the prison system. I refer particularly to women in prisons. I cannot support a system that will require wives, mothers and babies and sisters who visit women in prisons to be faced with this procedure. The penalties that will apply for revealing that information do nothing to allay my concerns.
It is an unnecessary process on two grounds: first, there is no evidence before me that this will do anything to prevent prison escapes. I assume that is what is meant by "enhanced security". Drugs in prison are of concern, but I would like the minister to provide me with the statistics of the drugs that are currently available in the prison system. We know that drugs are widely available. The former Attorney General made the point by asking what hope we have of a prohibition policy on drugs if we cannot keep them out of the most secure places in the State - the prisons. What proportion of the drugs that are currently in our prison system are being smuggled in by visitors as opposed to staff? If we wanted to be cost-effective in keeping drugs out of prisons, a program of sniffer dogs for visitors and staff is much more likely to reduce the introduction and smuggling of drugs into prisons than this whiz-bang technology which merely impinges on the privacy of visitors.
Hon Paddy Embry: What about sniffer dogs?
Hon GIZ WATSON: They should have their photographs taken too! Sniffer dogs are a much more effective way of identifying drug smuggling.
Hon Paddy Embry: You do not have a problem with sniffer dogs?
Hon GIZ WATSON: I do not. I do have a problem with some of the current reports I am receiving about the harassment of visitors, particularly to Bandyup Women's Prison, with strip searches and the like. That is of great concern. It is a contradiction that this Attorney General is seeking to provide better justice outcomes by prisoners reentering the community being less likely to offend, if he is, on the other hand, doing little to prevent the harassment of visitors and to encourage ongoing communication between family, friends and prisoners. Prisoners will continue to come out of the prison system being isolated and alienated without anywhere to go, with no prospect of re-employment and more likely to re-offend. I recently attended an interesting public forum on visitor-support services for women and heard directly from representatives of the services about their concerns. The prerelease phase is crucial for ensuring that when prisoners are finally released they have the services in place to ensure that they can access social security, housing and the prospect of finding a job.
That is related to how well the prisoner has been able to maintain communication and relationships with people on the outside. If something is done that will criminalise and harass visitors, it will be against the best outcome for the community. I have visited people in prison. If I were to front up to a prison and be asked to provide my biometrical identification, I would refuse. It is an infringement on my personal liberties. I do not trust for one moment any claim that the information will not be provided to anyone else, whether it be the police or not. One would be incredibly naïve to think that does not happen. My face is probably on every file from here to wherever, so it probably does not matter to me. It is a profoundly retrograde step to ask members of the public who have no criminal charge against them but who are merely a friend or relative of somebody in jail to provide this sort of identification. If the intent is to deal with the issue of drugs and to prevent prisoners escaping, this reaction to achieve those goals is totally over the top. They are good goals, and we do not disagree with the intent of achieving them. However, we disagree with the use of this sort of technology, which impinges on visitors' privacy rights.
Hon Nick Griffiths: How does it impinge on their privacy rights?
Hon GIZ WATSON: It does so in the same way as if people were required to give a palm print or fingerprint if they have done nothing more than seek to visit someone in prison. Why would fingerprints even be required? The minister obviously does not have a good answer to that, so we will move right along.
Hon Nick Griffiths: You are delivering your speech.
Hon GIZ WATSON: The minister asked the question.
Hon Nick Griffiths: I asked the question and I sought your explanation.
Hon Ray Halligan: Now it is on the record.
Hon GIZ WATSON: Why would it be necessary for me as a visitor to place my fingerprints on the record? What will be on the record - the question or the fingerprints?
Hon Ray Halligan: You were talking about not receiving a response from the minister. All I indicated was that he was seeking to have your response on the record.
Hon GIZ WATSON: I understand that - along with the fingerprints.
I will discuss this further when we reach the committee stage. The Greens (WA) will vote against this clause. We see no justification for it and no statistical evidence that suggests it is necessary. The experience in New South Wales indicates that there is criticism of the system. If the Government wishes to spend money, which it obviously will to install these sorts of systems, we suggest that it would be much better spent on prerelease facilities, providing halfway housing and enhancing services for prisoners who are about to re-enter the community, restorative justice and the like. I could name a few projects that could do with additional funding.
The Godfrey article reads -
The exponential growth in biometrics identification system (BIS) is under way; indeed the 'global market for biometric technologies is estimated to be in excess of $50 billion'. In order to expand its business, the biometrics industry has begun to target the 'captive markets' (the armed forces and prisons). Such involvement opens up the path for operation in the 'closed systems' (immigration control, access control, voter registration and state benefits registration). Once this has taken place, the way will be cleared for biometrics to intrude into the 'open markets' (employment, banking, health etc.).In that general sense the use of such technology must be viewed with extreme caution. Visitors to prisons, who are not charged with anything and who are not criminals, should not be denied access to their friends and families by their refusal to submit to this sort of scanning process.
We support other provisions in the Bill. We do not have any problem with changes to the area of the visitors' declaration. It is a fairly mechanical matter; indeed, we welcome the change that is proposed for the extended early discharge of prisoners. With those comments, I indicate the Greens (WA) will oppose the clause that deals with biometric identification.
Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Nick Griffiths (Minister for Racing and Gaming).