Alex White (Labour)

Once again I find myself in full agreement with Senator Mullen's comments on his amendment, which is more or less identical to the one proposed by my party. I am perplexed by some of the arguments put forward by the Minister of State on this occasion. Not only I am entirely unconvinced by them, but also they raise other questions in my mind. The Minister of State is right in saying we need an holistic approach to the issue. If we are to have a holistic response as he advocates, how can we ignore the question of victims? How can it be a holistic response, such as he is advocating, if we set that aside, for the purpose of this legislation? I accept he has said it will be addressed in other ways and is not saying that it is not relevant. As an earnest of our intentions as legislators and as an earnest of the Government's commitment to this question and the holistic approach the Minister of State advocates, I cannot understand the attitude he has taken to this proposal.

I note what Senator McDonald said. While I do not want to paraphrase her, what she said made great sense. She said that if we all agree these are issues that need to be addressed it is somewhat begrudging — that was not the Senator's word — that we should leave ourselves open to the accusation of paying lip service to the question of victims and not incorporate it in the legislation. Of course the Minister of State is right to say that the fundamental objective of the legislation is to attack the problem by breaking up the gang and not allowing offenders to go free. It is a criminal statute and that is its central objective, on which I agree with him. However, I find perplexing the notion that we go from that point to this strange argument — which needs to be addressed again by the Minister of State — that protections we put into legislation for victims could in some way arguably undermine the intention of legislation or could take from it in some way.

I again draw attention to the amendment, which states: "The Minister shall promulgate a code of victim's rights in respect of victims of trafficking which shall address the following issues:...", followed by a list of categories of matters that should be addressed in promulgating such a code. There are plenty of occasions in legislation where a Minister is enabled to introduce a code of conduct to include under one provision all of these important areas we all agree need to be addressed. For the life of me, I cannot see what the problem is with inserting an enabling provision in this Bill allowing the Minister of the day to introduce a code to address each and every one of these questions. The amendment simply says that the code should address the following issues. It is not absolutely prescriptive as to what precisely the Minister should have in the code. It allows quite a considerable degree of freedom to the Minister as to how precisely he or she would provide for these different questions. It is therefore not a provision that ties the Minister's hands in any respect. I cannot understand how the Supreme Court's strictures in the Gilligan case, and the risks associated with the evidence of persons in witness protection programmes, are being transported into this debate. I do not see where they belong because each of these proposals is a humanitarian provision in respect of human needs. As Senator Mullen correctly said, it is not remotely suggested that extending any of these rights or protections is contingent upon co-operation in criminal prosecutions. I do not understand this linkage. With all due respect to the Minister of State, it looks like a red herring to introduce the Gilligan argument in respect of a possible undermining of prosecutions. I simply cannot see it.

The Minister of State made the point, fairly, in respect of a national action plan but he did not address the question concerning the Immigration Bill's remit. I interpret his silence on the issue as an agreement to the unanswerable proposition that one cannot deal comprehensively with the rights of human trafficking victims in the Immigration Bill because that legislation provides for immigration from outside the EEA, while we have this phenomenon within the EEA. Therefore I will interpret the Minister of State's silence on the question as meaning that we are right in that regard. Manifestly there is a gap in respect of this matter. If the Minister and the Government want to be holistic I see no reason this amendment cannot be accepted. The Minister of State's argument, that great care needs to be taken on what precise rights and protections are extended to victims, is not one against having rights and protections. It is an argument that we should exercise care as to what those rights and protections ought to be, but it is not an argument against having such rights and protections.