Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to make some supporting remarks about the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Emergencies and Disasters) Bill 2006 but also to talk about privacy particularly in respect of the role of members of this House. This bill has a very desirable purpose and was intentionally wide so as to allow its operation in yet unforeseen circumstances. Privacy laws need to strike a balance between the value of sharing information for the benefit of both individuals and society and the privacy considerations that protect an individual’s personal information. It is important that the need for an efficient response to emergency and disaster situations is met, yet there needs to be a balance so as to protect personal information from misuse.

These laws offer greater clarity and assurance to both government agencies and private organisations who may be involved in emergency and disaster responses. The bill will ensure that assistance and relief to victims and their families is not unduly delayed or complicated by privacy concerns. Unfortunately, we have had a number of disasters—the Bali bombing and of course the tsunami in January 2005. Those emergencies have been the genesis of the changes.

I note that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner undertook a review which highlighted the difficulty faced by airlines in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami, when many Australians contacted airlines to find out whether the missing had continued flying after the tsunami hit. Such information, readily available to airlines, if disclosed would normally appear to be a breach of our privacy laws. The review considered a number of options for reform, recommending that a common-sense approach is taken to privacy laws, balancing between the desirability of having a flow of information and protecting individuals’ right to privacy. In large-scale emergencies the consequences of disclosure should be compared to the consequences of nondisclosure. The review noted the potential of identity fraud that may continue during such a time, especially if disclosure is allowed to the media.

I think all of us in this parliament, whichever side of politics we are on, support privacy laws; I certainly do. But I must say, going back to Attorney-General Michael Duffy’s time, I have had difficulty in the application of the privacy laws to the role of members of parliament. I believe that people often approach members of parliament after they have exhausted many other avenues. I find it very frustrating when departments of state demand that I as a member of parliament have a clearance, an authorisation from my constituent, to pursue their particular complaint and concern. Starting with the former Labor government with the banking ombudsman, we now have a plethora of ombudsmen who are privately appointed and privately funded, and they do a good job—I am not critical of their role. But, again, I find it offensive when I have been approached by a constituent to pursue their grievances that I may be requested as a member of parliament to seek a clearance from my constituent to act on their behalf. I find this profoundly offensive. I have been cautioned that members of parliament should not see themselves as above the law, and I do not.

There are a number of things that hinder me from fully exploiting my frustration. Firstly, this parliament does not have an active ethics committee, as many modern parliaments do. In other words, if a member of parliament were to misuse their office and seek information without acting on behalf of a constituent, there is no ethics committee to refer this matter to. I am told that this has occurred in a state other than my own. I believe that members of parliament cannot put themselves above others. We need to be accountable and not merely through the electoral cycle. I think there are sufficient experienced members of parliament on both sides of this House who would make an ethics committee work sensibly.

Secondly, there is the Privileges Committee. Sooner or later I am going to be tempted to place ombudsmen’s requests or department of state requests for authorisation from a constituent of mine to the Privileges Committee. Having said that, I regret to say that the Privileges Committee is the last of the functioning star chambers in the empire—not in the Senate; the Senate has undertaken a great deal of reform.

See this speech in context