Corrupt public workers who create false legal documents for criminals will soon be under scrutiny with the passage of the Miscellaneous Provisions (Testing and Identification) Bill.
The bill was passed at 8.09 pm yesterday with unanimous support from all Government, Opposition and Independent Senators present. The Opposition had supported the bill in the lower house recently.
The legislation will aid in identifying corrupt licensing officers, rogue police and prison officers, and fraudsters working at the Board of Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, and the Immigration Division who enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Speaking in the Senate, Minister of National Security Fitzgerald Hinds said the new legislation would be a vital tool in the fight against crime. He revealed that the Government had information on many corrupt public officers who disregarded the public interest for personal gain.
“Every one of us feels the pain of crime and I am called upon to account for this every day,” Hinds said. With the passage of the bill, Hinds said, rogue elements in the protective services and government departments would be exposed.
Acknowledging concerns about potential breaches of constitutional rights, Hinds argued that such measures were warranted to combat crime and corruption within the State.
“Those whom we pay for protection, when they turn against us, must be dealt with,” he said. “We have evidence of many corrupt individuals. This legislation aims to reduce crime and tackle corruption in the services,” he added.
Hinds noted that the bill included safeguards, such as applying to those with access to top-secret information or reasonable grounds for misconduct. It is specifically aimed at legal and judicial officers involved in serious criminal offences, complex fraud, or money laundering.
Meanwhile, Opposition Senator Jayanti Lutchmedial-Ramdial expressed concerns about drug testing.
“There can be no doubt about the level of corruption that exists where public officials are helping criminals,” she said.
While acknowledging the need for drug testing in the protective services, Lutchmedial-Ramdial questioned the inclusion of lawyers and raised concerns about data storage and access. She emphasised the importance of avoiding overreach and ensuring the legislation did not infringe on constitutional rights.
She also highlighted the lack of accompanying regulations and the absence of stakeholder consultations, which she argued would bolster confidence in the legislation.
She questioned whether the policy had been shared with affected associations, such as the Public Service Association and the Police Service Association.
“The various Public Service Commissions should have been consulted,” Lutchmedial-Ramdial said. “We need to know if the legislation was shared and what the responses were.”
She also raised the issue of contract officers, who have no security of tenure.
Saying state contracts were typically three years long, Lutchmedial-Ramdial expressed concerns about indefinite data retention and potential breaches in security.
Meanwhile, Independent Senator Anthony Vieira voiced opposition to polygraph testing, citing doubts about its reliability.
“Polygraphs have been around since the 1960s, and if they are not reliable, why are we using them?” Vieira asked.
“This can impact job prospects and has the potential for stereotyping, abuse, and discrimination.”
He supported biometric data collection but criticised the use of polygraphs due to the risk of false positives and negatives.