Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Mallee for the question, because I know that issues in relation to the handling of personal information of individuals are of great concern to members of the House generally. From time to time I even hear comments on the importance of privacy issues from some members opposite. The act is quite clear. It provides important protection for everybody in the Australian community. The act imposes certain obligations on organisations when they collect or use personal information. There are certain National Privacy Principles in the act which set out the obligations of non-government organisations. The very first principle is that an organisation must not collect personal information unless the information is necessary for one or more of its functions or activities. Of equal importance is the principle that an organisation must take reasonable steps to ensure that the individual is aware of the purposes for which the information is collected. In other words, if an organisation collects information that is not directly relevant to its activities, it could be in breach of those principles.

I know from the noise being made that some members appear not to treat this issue as seriously as some of their colleagues who have pressed these matters on other occasions. But let me just say that there is some very important case law on these principles which ought to be of concern to everybody in this House. It involves, in particular, a union associated with the ACTU. I draw the House’s attention to a case involving the Channel 7 network and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and another. That body is a union affiliated with the ACTU. In that case, the alliance engaged a call centre to poll employees of the Channel 7 network before a scheduled vote on an agreement. The call centre was acting as an agent of the alliance when it undertook that polling, with scripted questions, and collected a variety of personal information from staff of the Channel 7 network that it contacted. Mr Justice Gyles of the Federal Court held that the collected information, no matter how useful or desirable to the union—that is, the alliance—was ‘hardly necessary for any of its functions’. This meant that this body was clearly in direct breach of the National Privacy Principles. His Honour also found that the call centre did not let people who were polled know the purposes for which the information was being collected.

I think this is a case of the utmost importance to us all. If an organisation is going to seek information from you or any of your constituents or any body of which you are a member or with which you are associated, even if it is the ACTU or its friendly local union representative, you are entitled to know why and you should make sure that it is necessary for the function of the organisation. If people believe their personal details have been misused, as they clearly were in this case, by an organisation to which they belong or with which they are in any way associated then they should lodge their complaint with the Privacy Commissioner so that these issues can be dealt with.

See this speech in context