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

I thank the deputy chair and I think it is not an unreasonable intervention, but I am trying to make the point that I am a strong supporter of privacy legislation and of this legislation, but the Privileges Committee has yet to reform itself, even though after many months we are still waiting for a consultant’s report. I believe that the Privileges Committee needs to operate in a transparent and public way so that, if a member of parliament transgresses in relation to privacy laws—whether they be the existing laws or these new emergency powers—a proper, modern privileges committee could operate.

But I do say this—and I hope the officials from the Attorney-General’s Department are listening: we need to work together with the Privacy Commissioner, in my view, to ensure that the privacy laws, whether for emergency circumstances such as these or for more normal operations of departments of state, do not hinder members of parliament in their function of representing their constituents. If the Privacy Commissioner has concerns or if the departments of state have concerns that have not been transmitted to the Privacy Commissioner then we need to work through them so that we have a Privacy Act that is flexible and meets the objectives both in a normal situation and in an emergency situation such as this, where the privacy legislation has been found to be counterproductive to the very objectives for which it was set up. I am always going to speak out in this place about the right of members to make representations, without fear or favour, on behalf of their constituents. Whether that means taking on a permanent head or whether that means taking on a privately funded ombudsman, I think members of parliament should be allowed to do it.

I do not believe that we have found the right balance. I do not believe that there are the right checks and balances that make members of parliament not above the law but answerable properly for their actions. The lack of a functioning ethics committee of this parliament I think is unfortunate. It means we are behind the times. I again say about the House of Representatives Privileges Committee, which I am a member of, that it is the last of the functioning star chambers of any parliament. It is so far behind the Senate Privileges Committee that it is not funny. For the life of me, I do not understand why it has taken so long to get a consultant’s report that looks at modernising the Privileges Committee. I say to the members on both sides of the chamber in this chamber today: please take a keen interest in reform of the Privileges Committee. It is long overdue. It needs to be done and it needs to be done quickly. We cannot hold ourselves up as being modern, responsible legislators if we are prepared to tolerate this star chamber that has operated for so long. Last but not least, I think it is an absolute outrage that we—that is, the Privileges Committee—have only ever published in the Hansard two responses by members of the public to matters that have been raised in the House or in this chamber. The Senate has, without in any way feeling constrained or diminished, allowed that to happen on many, many occasions.

Again, I will just say that I have been a supporter of privacy legislation. I welcome the fact that even the commissioner himself has understood that these principles can work in a counterproductive way, and he is supportive of the legislation that is before the parliament. I support it but I do have form, going back to Attorney-General Michael Duffy, in pointing out the difficulty that members of parliament may suffer when they want to raise matters on behalf of their constituents.

See this speech in context