Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In addressing the Archives Amendment Bill 2008 (the bill), a bill that proposes changes to the Archives Act 1983 (the act) that will implement certain recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report No. 85: Australia’s federal record: a review of the Archives Act 1983, I would like to particularly welcome the member for Fairfax, who I understand is a member of the advisory board of the National Archives. I look forward to his contribution with respect to this particular issue. I know of the good work that he has been doing on that advisory board. A majority of the recommendations have already been implemented administratively. I guess one would say that this is a bit of a housekeeping bill in terms of catching up with some of the administrative recommendations that have been administered and implemented.

The bill inserts an objects clause which confirms the role of the National Archives of Australia (the Archives) as identifying and preserving the archival resources of the Commonwealth and providing for their access by the public. The clause also acknowledges the Archives’ role in overseeing Commonwealth record keeping by determining standards and providing advice to Commonwealth institutions.

This bill recognises the fact that there can be compelling reasons why archival records should be retained by their agency of origin or in some other appropriate place. For example, records may be created or accessed through particular technologies not available at a central archives, or, similarly, specialised skills may be required to retrieve, interpret or manage data. For this reason, the bill introduces the concept that archival records can be considered to be in the care of the Archives, and therefore subject to the provisions that apply to all archival material, even when they are not in the physical custody of the Archives.

Accordingly, the bill amends the definition of ‘material of the Archives’, removing references to records or other archival material being in the ‘custody of the Archives’ and replacing them with references to being ‘in the care of the Archives’. I think that that is fairly substantial, given the technologies that are discussed a bit further on.

The bill also deals with the nature of the arrangements which are to be put in place where records in the care of the Archives are in the custody of others. Importantly, it provides that such records, if in the open access period, are to be available for public inspection. The arrangements must also provide for the protection and maintenance of the records, for inspection by the Archives, for access by institutions as required and for the records to be transferred to the custody of the Archives if so directed by the Director-General of the Archives.

In the 25 years since the act was drafted, emerging technologies have dramatically changed the way in which affairs of government are transacted and information is recorded. While the act attempted to allow for the electronic creation, capture and management of records, it did so in a very format-specific way. This bill reflects technological developments and provides for further advances by substituting a new definition of a record as a document or an object in any form that has been kept for the information it contains or its connection with any event, person, circumstance or thing. The new definition also gives legislative authority to a policy direction issued by the Archives in 1995 that accorded the same status to electronic records as to paper records.

As the new definition of a record includes objects, the provision within the act giving the minister responsible for the Archives the power to declare an object that is Commonwealth property to be an object of archival significance would become obsolete and will thus be removed when the changes proposed in this bill are enacted.

The bill inserts a provision such that the Director-General of the Archives may determine that a record or other material is part of the archival resources of the Commonwealth. This formalises existing administrative arrangements for identifying records of archival value and complements existing provisions within the act whereby the Archives can give permissions relating to the handling of Commonwealth records.

The earliest possible transfer of archival resources enables the Archives to determine conservation requirements before records begin to deteriorate. This is particularly important in the case of electronic records so that preservation measures can be taken before changes in software and data formats render records inaccessible.

The bill therefore requires that records identified as being part of the archival resources of the Commonwealth be transferred to the care of the Archives as soon as practicable after they are no longer required to be readily available for the business purposes of the relevant agency, but, in any event, within 25 years of their creation.

While a key responsibility of the Archives is the identification and preservation of records of archival value, the Archives is not the most appropriate repository for all archival resources. The bill therefore provides the Archives with the power to decline to accept the care of records that are not part of the archival resources of the Commonwealth. Where such records are currently in the custody of the Archives, records may be returned to institutions or their successors only in accordance with arrangements agreed between the institution and the Archives.

The changes to the Archives Act 1983 proposed by this bill, while relatively minor, are an important step towards improving government record-keeping and public access arrangements. In introducing the Archives Amendment Bill 2008, the government sets in motion a process of reviewing and modernising the Archives Act 1983 to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the operations of the National Archives of Australia.

Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Archives Amendment Bill 2008 today. The reason for that is that I have served on the National Archives of Australia Advisory Council for 12 years, which I think is a record for anybody serving on the advisory council. Throughout the Howard government years, I was the parliamentary representative from the House of Representatives. My counterpart from the then opposition was Senator John Faulkner, who is now the Special Minister of State, the minister who has responsibility for the Archives and for carriage of this bill. I know, from serving on the advisory council with him for 11 years, that he is a great advocate for the Australian National Archives. His love of things historical and his knowledge of the political history of Australia are second to none.

This bill was actually drafted during the previous government and, due to legislative pressures, unfortunately did not pass through both houses. I had many occasions to speak to the minister responsible at the time, Senator Rod Kemp, while endeavouring to have the bill passed by the parliament, but unfortunately the government would not give the bill precedence in the busy program it had. But I would really like to pay tribute to Senator Faulkner for bringing the bill to this place.

I have a long history in the Canberra workforce. I first came here as a 17-year-old, with the intention of going to the ANU. I worked in the Commonwealth Public Service in my 20s and 30s and entered parliament in my 40s. I was here in my 50s and I am still here in my 60s, so I have a long association with Canberra. I hate to admit that! I have been part of a lot of radical changes in the workplace, from the old days of typing pools, central registries—each department had a registry—carbon copies and stencils to the evolution of photocopiers, laser printers, personal computers and emails. The role of the Archives throughout that period has changed with technological change. Technologies are vastly different now from what they were 25 years ago, and I am sure they are very different from what they will be in 25 years time. When I worked in the Commonwealth department of health, the computer used in the department filled a whole floor of a building over in Woden. Today, my mobile phone has twice the capacity of that large, cumbersome computer.

Twenty-five years ago when the Archives Bill was first presented there was no provision in the drafting process to include an objects clause. This bill is now able to include an objects clause and therefore confirm the role of the National Archives of Australia.

Retrieval of information is part of our busy lives. With internet technology in our lounge rooms we can Google any time we want. Surfing the net is old school and instead the many clips on YouTube or the latest news via the news agency web pages ensure we have the latest news and information at our fingertips. With the overload of information and ability to communicate with fellow humans across the world at the press of the button it is even more important to ensure we have an avenue to ensure our living history is in the care of the Archives.

One of the major amendments in this bill, as outlined by the parliamentary secretary, is the recognition that there are times that archival records should be retained by their agency of origin, or in some other appropriate place. Therefore, references to ‘in the custody of’ in the bill have been replaced with ‘in the care of’. For instance, information kept by the weather bureau would be more appropriately stored within that department. This is important as specialist skills may be required to retrieve, interpret or manage the data.

This bill also allows for new technologies, as I have said before, to ensure the definition of ‘record’ is more open. The term ‘record’ was defined very specifically in the original act. Technology has made such a remarkable difference to our lives and this has also impacted on the collection and storage of documents. Digital technology was outside any boundaries previously considered. Records were thought to be paper, microfiche and then magnetic tapes. It was therefore important to make the term ‘record’ able to encompass future technologies.

This bill also formalises the process for identifying the archival resources of the Commonwealth, currently undertaken within the destruction and disposal provisions. It also allows the Director-General to identify and determine conservation requirements before records begin to deteriorate. This is especially important for electronic records—just ask any family that has precious family videos on beta tapes!

During the Howard government I was at one stage chair of the Privileges Committee and I saw firsthand the importance of historians having access to documents of significant events in our Westminster system. One of the most important achievements through my chairmanship of that committee was the release of the Browne and Fitzpatrick papers enabling them to be tabled in federal parliament and made available in the archives. These papers were previously hidden from historians. The release of these papers gives us rare understanding of the reasons behind the decision by our federal parliament to jail two people found in contempt by the parliament. That information was not available to the public until it was released a number of years ago.

It is important that our history be available to historians, researchers and those simply interested in the reasons behind many of the events that shape our lives. When two public servants in a department can exchange many emails in a day, when they sit at a desk next to each other, it is important our systems can be flexible enough to cope with today’s technology and make decisions as to what has to be kept and what does not. The minister noted in his tabling speech that the changes in this bill, while relatively minor, are an important step towards improving government recordkeeping and public access arrangements. It is important that we have these arrangements. We need to ensure our archives keep up with the changing pace of new and emerging technology.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the Director-General, Ross Gibbs, and his dedicated team of archivists in Canberra and capital cities across Australia and commend them for their work. Their passion and ability will be of great benefit to future generations of Australians. I would encourage my fellow members of parliament to pay attention to the work of the Archives. We often receive notification of events that are happening there, part of the contribution the Archives make to preserving the history of this country, of which we all form a part. I implore you to get involved in the activities of the Archives. To my fellow councillors on the Archives council: thank you for your passion in assisting the work of the National Archives. I commend the bill to the House.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Archives Amendment Bill 2008 makes changes to the Archives Act 1983. Given the importance of national government archives, the complexity of record keeping in the modern world and the perishability of recent formats, these changes have been a long time coming.

The bill implements some of the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report No. 85, Australia’s federal record: a review of Archives Act 1983. The report was commenced in 1996 and presented to the parliament in August 1998, over 10 years ago. Many of the recommendations have been implemented administratively, but it has taken over 10 years for the legislative changes to be forthcoming.

The National Archives of Australia is an incredibly important organisation. It holds the history of the government of the nation. I suspect that few Australians actually know or appreciate the role of the Archives. We all see from time to time that important papers from 30 years ago have been released, and we show some interest, but I doubt that many people understand how those documents got to be kept where they were kept and how they were made available. The answer to those questions is: via the National Archives of Australia.

In its own words, the National Archives:

… documents the full range of Australian Government activities since Federation in 1901, and includes significant 19th-century records dealing with activities that were transferred from the colonies to the Commonwealth.

‘Archives’ is defined in the Australian Records Management Standard as ‘those records that are appraised as having continuing value’. In traditional use, it is used to describe records no longer required for current use which have been selected for permanent preservation. Again in the Archives’ own words:

Our collection comprises records of

• the Australian Government—over 100 years’ of records created by government agencies as they document debates, decisions, actions and interactions
• Commonwealth persons—papers and other records of prominent people such as governors-general, prime ministers, ministers, secretaries and High Court judges
• the High Court—judges’ notebooks, correspondence between High Court members, records of court judgements

The functions of the National Archives of Australia include helping Australian government agencies create and manage their records; selecting the most valuable records created by Australian government agencies to become part of the national archival collection; storing, describing and preserving the national archival collection; and making records in the national archival collection that are over 30 years old publicly available.

The National Archives of Australia has an extraordinary responsibility and an essential role in keeping government accountable, yet the keeping of the Australian archives has quite a patchy history. It took quite some time to find valuable records of the Australian federal government a home. They were kept in various places with various organisations, but it was only in 1942 that Australia’s participation in the Second World War prompted steps towards the creation of a more general system, with the setting up of the War Archives Committee to deal with records of the war. Following the war, the task was expanded to include the preservation of all Commonwealth archives, and a fledgling archives organisation was established. Since that time it has had several changes of name and status. The Archives Act 1983 finally provided legislative authority.

About 13 years after its establishment in April 1996, the National Archives of Australia implemented a review in response to changing community views on privacy and access to information and the proliferation of electronic record keeping. The report found that record keeping in many Commonwealth agencies was in a parlous state and could only be overcome if the National Archive of Australia were allowed to adopt a proactive policy stance, and that there was a strong need for mandatory record keeping standards. It was also found in that report that there was a need to recognise the predominance of electronic records and a need for the National Archives to be involved in the design of electronic record keeping systems if there was to be any realistic hope of continuing access to records contained in those systems.

The report also recommended that the NAA be an independent statutory authority, which was implemented in 2001, that there be more effective supervision by the National Archives of Australia of disposal of non-archival records, and that there be legislative direction that records more than 30 years old be made available to the public unless there are compelling reasons to withhold them.

There were also recommendations that the National Archives should issue guidelines to encourage and facilitate the early release of records and that the availability of records should be expanded particularly through new technologies and public promotion of the availability of records. Again, many of those recommendations were administrative but 10 years later the legislation essentially implementing the legislative elements of that 1998 report were introduced into the Senate. The Archives Amendment Bill 2006 was introduced but lapsed when parliament was prorogued in October 2007. The current bill is similar, but not identical. The bill has the support of the stakeholders. The National Archives of Australia welcomed the introduction of the 2006 bill as the culmination of 10 years effort. The Australia Society of Archivists also appears to be broadly supportive of the bill.

So let us look at what the bill does. It essentially deals with the weaknesses identified in the methods for the collection and preservation of records of archival significance as outlined in the 1998 report. Its purpose is to improve record keeping across the Commonwealth and acknowledge both the advisory role that the archive plays in Commonwealth record keeping and the responsibility for preserving, promoting and making publicly available the archival resources of the Commonwealth.

The proposed amendments also provide for records that would be otherwise in the custody of the Archives to be kept in the custody of other persons under certain conditions. The bill describes the objects of the Archives Act as functions including identifying and preserving the archival resources of the Commonwealth and providing the public with appropriate access. It also provides for a role for the National Archives in overseeing Commonwealth record keeping by determining standards and imposing record keeping obligations in respect of Commonwealth records.

The bill also recognises that sometimes it is not always appropriate for records to be stored by the archive; that perhaps they should be retained elsewhere, perhaps by their agency of origin or in some other place. It may be, as previous speakers have outlined, that records require specialist technology to enable access or specialist skills to interpret or manage the material. So the bill makes a simple but quite profound change in that it recognises that records might be in the care of the archive without actually being in the custody of the archive. So it amends the definition of ‘material of the archives’ to mean records in the care of the archive regardless of their place of storage.

As the National Archives retains responsibility for the care of archives that are held by others, the bill also deals with the nature of the arrangements for the care of those archives. Importantly, it provides that for such records there be appropriate public access. There must also be provision for protection and maintenance of records, for inspection by the National Archives, for access by institutions as required, and for the transfer of the archives if so directed by the Director-General of the Archives.

The bill also recognises that the nature of records—the physical forms—have changed over time. The early act of 1983 was quite specific about formats for electronic ‘documents’. It was drafted in the 1970s and passed in 1983 and it refers, for example, to storage on magnetic tape. Words such as ‘email’ and ‘compact disk’ do not exist in the act of 1983.

The new definition of a record is very open, and it should withstand changes in technology. The bill substitutes a new definition of a record as ‘a document or an object, in any form, that has been kept for the information it contains or its connection with any event, person, circumstance or thing’. So it is the purpose for which the object is kept that is important, not the nature of the object itself. Because of the perishability of items, the bill also requires Commonwealth institutions to transfer their archived records to the care of the Archives as soon as they are no longer current and, in any event, within 25 years of their creation. The earliest possible transfer is particularly important for electronic records, which often require that Archives determine conservation requirements before records begin to deteriorate or before changes in software and data formats render documents inaccessible. These are important changes to the Archives Act 1983.

Open government requires proper record-keeping and the management of public assets in a timely manner. The growth of the Archive’s activity has been extraordinary—and we should acknowledge here that there are many extraordinary staff working for the National Archives of Australia who are passionate about keeping records. In 1984, shortly after the act was implemented, the Australian Archives had a staff of 400, stored 367,521 shelf metres of permanent and temporary material and received 3,446 inquiries from the public. In 2007 their staffing level was relatively unchanged—it had moved from 400 to 402—and permanent and temporary storage was down by about 10,000 shelf metres to 356,149 shelf metres. But the number of inquiries they received from the public increased from 3,446 to 123,734. That is an extraordinary increase in the amount of public interaction, considering that the staff number is almost the same and the added complexity of the range of government records which are being kept.

It is surprising that it has taken 10 years since the review to implement these largely technical, but important, changes. The Archives Amendment Bill 2008 will enhance the ability of the National Archives of Australia to manage the important records under their care. I commend the bill to the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the member for Parramatta and the information she has provided to us about the Archives and the Archives Amendment Bill 2008. The bill enjoys the bipartisan support of the coalition.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is nice to be in the chamber with the very famous member for Fowler, who specialises in talking about matters that her party does not want her to talk about. I congratulate her for her candid speech on the education bill. But I digress. The coalition support this bill. We brought in amendments to the legislation in 2006 and 2008. These amendments complement the Australian Law Reform Commission’s recommendations on the Archives Act 1983. This is really a technical bill but it does update the Archives Act to ensure that it reflects modern thinking and modern terms of parlance with respect to the keeping of text and data storage technologies, and it will facilitate the better and continuing high-quality storage of Australian archival history. The bill is a very slightly altered version of the Archives Amendment Bill 2006, which of course was put together by the previous government. As a consequence, it would be unusual for the coalition to oppose it.

Australia is very fortunate to have a very sophisticated level of keeping of Australian archival history. We do many things very well in Australia, and this is one of the particularly good things that we do. Our keeping of historical records on aspects of Australian history, whether it is the most recent history or going back to the early parts of Federation, is the envy of most of the rest of the world. It has had something of a resurgence in recent years because of the resurgence of interest in the war records of, in particular, those who fought in the First World War and the Second World War.

All members of parliament would be well acquainted with requests from constituents to help find the records of grandparents and parents who served in Korea and Vietnam and in times before so that families can learn about the history of their fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, grandparents et cetera. We have all had experience with the tremendous and sophisticated level of archive keeping Australia. We hope that that will continue and this bill will facilitate that. It is nice to be able to say to a constituent that we are almost certain that we will be able to get the records of those who fought and served with the Australian armed forces going back now 107 years.

There is another aspect to the archives for those in politics who are particularly obsessed with political history. We look forward to New Year’s Day every year when the 30-year rule allows for the release of cabinet documents from 30 years ago. I confess to being something of a political junkie. After 15 years in this place, one would expect nothing less. I must admit I bound out of bed on New Year’s Day to read the newspapers and see the exciting things that happened in cabinet 30 years ago. The time of the Dismissal was a particularly interesting year for all of us. Although I was eight, it is my first political memory. Without the archives, without the very sophisticated level of archive keeping in Australia, that information would not be available. We joke about it a little but for many countries there is no archival history of the activities of their governments and their armed forces, and many countries would wish to have the amazing record keeping we have in Australia. I commend the bill to the House. I am grateful to be able to say that on this occasion the opposition stands foursquare with the government in bringing in this bill.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I personally take a great deal of interest in history and records, having studied a degree in social science—documenting social history and development and the industrialisation of society. Well-kept records are invaluable for future years, as the previous member correctly said. It is good to note that there is some bipartisanship on the Archives Amendment Bill 2008. I hope it preserves for longer than 30 years. I do think it is important that, as technology changes over time, we have new means of recording information. Information can be recorded in any number of ways—for example, digitally on computers and mobile phones or transferred to SIM keys.

This updated definition of archives is all-encompassing and that is valuable. We supposedly now have a paperless society. As we know, some laugh when we say that. But the fact is a lot of stuff is recorded digitally. Sometimes in our 24-hour news cycle, particularly for the national government the time at which a telephone call is made and recorded digitally could be very important, literally, from one hour to the next, especially in times of global crisis, whether it be financial, war or international relations. Such recording is very important for the national archive. The extent of this goes beyond the traditional methods such as papers, books and various other audio recordings. It is essential that we treasure our archives because in the long run future generations can learn from how decisions were made and why certain actions were taken. The history that we have can teach future generations where things might be done better or how to develop more efficient systems.

Who knows in 30 years time what other technologies may be available? I left school in 1976, and new technology then was a pocket calculator. The biggest debate at that time was whether you could take a calculator into a maths exam. Kids today just laugh at that because they learn to type before they learn to write. My own children are a case in point. They could type before they could write, simply because they were surrounded by computers at home. So it is very, very important that we have a new definition of what archives are.

This goes a long way to ensuring the recording of all sorts of events, whether they be of a political nature, a climatic nature or whatever. We have satellite technology as well. Satellite technology can be used for a vast range of things, whether it is mapping our continent, looking at the contours of the land, looking at the heat coming out of our land or looking at where we choose to drill, mine or fish. All these things are recorded digitally and via satellite. So new technology brings about new definitions of what archives are. The way that that information is held and redisplayed is very important.

I personally have a passion for history. The way I learned history was through collecting coins and stamps, associating certain periods of kings and queens and rises and falls and new inventions with the year of a coin or looking at stamps highlighting certain themes. That is a very simplistic way of saying that different modes of archive recall certain amounts of information. Things like this are touchstones. They are symbolic. They open up a wealth of knowledge.

Our Indigenous people have a continuous culture of over 60,000 years. That culture, we have to remind ourselves, is a longer continuous culture than the Chinese culture. It is longer than the cultures of Rome, Greece and Egypt. Sometimes we forget that. How did they record their history? How did they pass on their traditions? How did they form their archives? We are currently discovering, all across our land, various cave paintings and drawings which were done. That is a symbolic form of history brought back to the memory. That is how the elders and the tribespeople explained to their children the stories of their elders.

Symbolism and the mode and the character of the things we hold and describe as archives take on many different meanings over tens of thousands of years. I think it is very important that we take that on board. I am very passionate about the print trade, having spent 20 years in it—I started as an apprentice in 1976. In our current society, even though the print trade has been eclipsed by the internet—another form of recording history and archive data—current contemporary history is really recorded in the newspapers of the day. That technology is still present with us and I am sure it will be around for quite a while, but it has been eclipsed by the internet, where we have literally a global library which we can access. Within government there are private internet library sites which are not open to the general public. They change over time and they need to be preserved.

Any good business operator, whether it is in the commercial world or in the government world, always has a good backup system. Mr Deputy Speaker Washer, I know that you and I come from similar backgrounds of running medical practices and that you know, from a litigation point of view, that it is absolutely vital that we have backup systems because backup systems of medical records—another form of archive—are very important. You do not just have one backup tape; you have many. Every day you have tapes backing up because your system might inadvertently crash without you knowing at a certain point and you might lose certain data. It is very important to have a backup system.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Billson interjecting

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I have hit a nerve with the member for Dunkley. He has obviously experienced a digital crash once or twice in his life. Hopefully, it was not a midlife digital crash.

We have new forms of technology, whether they come from old ancient traditions, from our industrialisation traditions or from the new digital revolution—and these digital revolutions will also be eclipsed in time because time marches on and things change; they always do—but we have to have new modes of storing these bits of information. I personally have a passion for history and I would like to see an audio, a print and a visual archive. I believe it should be placed in regional centres around Australia because capital cities around Australia in the states have the big infrastructure. The old tradition of historical museums, being very tactile places with prints explaining what is happening, may also be eclipsed by multimedia historical museums. This is a project which I personally have a passion for and am working towards.

In my own seat of Dawson I have put that idea out to the regional economic development communities there, in Mackay, Proserpine and Bowen. They have traditional archives of historical information, and that is all well and good. But how can they retell stories of the generations in a new and interesting form? We have to embrace the technology of the digital revolution. Whether that is through the internet or through optic fibre or digital projection, we can add interest to the archiving of historical knowledge.

This is all encompassing, and I think it is excellent that it has bipartisan support. It was started in 2006. It is very important that we deliver this and that we go ahead and record events in many different ways. This is highly commendable. I am truly passionate about archive history and the way it has been recorded over thousands of years. We can help preserve things through new digital technology. For example, I have never actually seen the diaries of James Cook, but I have on the internet because each page is photographed and each page is available. Isn’t it amazing that anyone in the world can access that? That is how great this digital revolution is. We are going to be using all forms and all means. That is why this legislation is important. I read the Archives Act very carefully and it gives a very broad and encompassing definition of all forms of archive information, which means objects, items and, as I alluded to earlier, things such as coins and stamps—not just papers but also audio and visual and any other digital technology that may arise over time. I commend this bill to the House.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with much pleasure that I rise tonight to speak about the Archives Amendment Bill 2008.  I listened to the member for Dawson and his passion for archives. It is an interesting topic and, when you dig deep into archives, there are many treasures. I will talk to my personal experiences later in this debate, but I want to outline what this amending legislation is about and what it means to the process of archiving.

The Archives Amendment Bill 2008 proposes changes to the Archives Act 1983 and implements certain recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report No. 85: Australia’s federal record: a review of the Archives Act 1983. A majority of the recommendations have already been implemented administratively. It has been 25 years since the introduction of the Archives Act 1983 and not much has changed since the introduction of that act.

There are many points in the explanatory memorandum, and too many to go through, but I really want to home in on a couple of points. The proposed minor amendments to the act include the addition of an objects clause to part 1 of the act. The objects clause acknowledges the advisory role that the Archives play in record keeping across the Commonwealth and acknowledges that archival resources of the Commonwealth will be preserved, promoted and made publicly available. The amendments also provide for records to remain in the care of the Archives while in the custody of persons other than the Archives.

Schedule 1, item 1 of the bill confirms the role of the National Archives of Australia as identifying and preserving records comprising the archival resources of the Commonwealth and promoting their public availability. It also acknowledges the role of the National Archives of Australia as the Commonwealth’s authority on record keeping and acknowledges its function of determining standards and providing advice to Commonwealth institutions.

Item 2 provides an explanation of the meaning of a record being ‘in the care of the Archives’. This is one of the key concepts of the new amendments. A record is ‘in the care of the Archives’ whether it is in the custody of the National Archives of Australia or in the custody of a person under an arrangement made with the National Archives of Australia under section 64 of the Archives Act. This point explains that there is some archival information the National Archives may not be able to provide custody for. For example, some types of scientific data may require specialist hardware to allow the software or media in which the data is stored to be read. The National Archives of Australia may not have access to the appropriate hardware or, where it does have access, the hardware may not be in an environment which is conducive to the storage or security requirements for the data. In other cases, National Archives of Australia staff may not have sufficient knowledge or training to interpret, retrieve or manage the data. The member for Dawson gave some very good examples of that type of data. Even where arrangements are made with a person to have custody of a record, the National Archives of Australia must still be able to meet its obligations under the Archives Act—for example, to make records available to Commonwealth institutions under section 30(1) and to make records publicly available under section 31(1). This bill introduces the concept that archival records are to be considered in the care of National Archives even though they may not be in the physical custody of the Archives.

Turning to item 7, on section 5(1) of the act: the National Archives of Australia was originally established by the Archives Act 1983 to sit within a department—initially the Department of Home Affairs and Environment—but in February 2001 it was established as an executive agency by order of the Governor-General, made under the Public Service Act 1999 in February 2001. The proposed amendment omits the words ‘within the department’ from section 5(1) of the Archives Act to reflect the National Archives of Australia’s status as an executive agency. In so doing, it implements advice which counselled that there was no need to amend the act prior to the establishment of an executive agency having the name National Archives of Australia but that consideration should be given to making appropriate amendments to the Archives Act should that act need to be amended for other reasons in the future. It is considered appropriate and convenient to make the amendment at this point in time. The order establishing the National Archives of Australia as an executive agency gave it the functions specified in the Archives Act, as in force from time to time. This means that the National Archives of Australia will have as its functions those functions, as amended by the proposed amendments to section 5(2).

The second reading speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister highlights further points:

... the bill amends the definition of ‘material of the Archives’, removing references to records or other archival material being in the ‘custody of the Archives’ and replacing them with references to being ‘in the care of the Archives’. ...

The bill also deals with the nature of the arrangements which are to be put in place where records in the care of the Archives are in the custody of others. Importantly, it provides that such records, if in the open access period, are to be available for public inspection. The arrangements must also provide for the protection and maintenance of the records, for inspection by the Archives, for access by institutions as required and for the records to be transferred to the custody of the Archives if so directed by the Director-General of the Archives.

Another point that the parliamentary secretary raises is the emerging and ever-changing technology. In the 25 years since the act was drafted, the changes have been extraordinary. Technology has changed the way that government affairs are executed and information is recorded. The act has on previous occasions attempted to allow for electronic creation, capture and management of records in a specific way. The new definition reflects technological developments and provides for further advances by substituting a new definition of a record as a document or an object in any form. This also gives records the same status whether in electronic or paper form.

The reason I am giving that background to the act, and certainly the technical side of the act, is to lead in to my own personal experiences with archives. As we know, and as other speakers have said tonight, it is about recording our history; it is a means of protecting our history and that depth and level of understanding. Many governments around the world are envious of the fact that in this country we have such a wonderful record keeping system.

I want to give another perspective on the importance of archives, probably to an emerging group in our community. Many have heard me talk in the Main Committee and in the other chamber on many occasions about my background. In 1960 I was adopted. My mother was only 17 and unmarried and in those days there were no benefits that we see today to be able to keep a child in that condition. So I was adopted. It was a Queensland adoption, all run by the state, which was a good thing at the time in terms of their record keeping. But the reality is of course that by 1964 it became a real issue socially and all the records and access to adoption records were closed off. So no-one had any access to information. It was supposedly to be kept secret and away from public view forever. In fact, after 1964 if you adopted a child you were given a guarantee that that information would be locked away forever.

We talk about locking information away. We have the archival process of course but this was very much a regulatory regime that believed that it was in the interests of the child, mother, father and everyone else in the extended family that this information should be withheld and not released—there was a range of reasons. During the following 29 years of my life, while I had a very good understanding of my circumstances and my history, there was no way to get access to information. In fact, to go down the normal route to get birth certificates and other information was simply illegal in Queensland. I had a big involvement in the changing of the laws in Queensland to allow that access to records, particularly those held by the state. By the time these laws were changed they had been in force for some 18 years. In fact, it is only an amendment going through the Queensland parliament right now, this month, that will open up and finally put to rest some of the secrecy that surrounded adoption in Queensland. Queensland is the last state to actually open its records to the public. I was very tenacious in the way that I went about finding information but the only information I had was the fact that I was born Colin David Smith. The Christian names were fine but having a surname like Smith in the milieu of the time and with the record keeping made it very, very difficult.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you were successful?

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I was successful. So the importance of record keeping and the importance of information is the point I want to make tonight. While there was some opening up of the records, certainly a person in my situation found it very difficult. Prior to the laws being changed in Queensland I found my natural family—through six years of intensive research, a lot of luck along the way and maybe a few underground methods of finding information. But the reality was—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resourceful!

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very resourceful. The reality was that the information was there. There was frustration, which is long gone now because the laws are changing. I was in my late 20s when I started my search and it was very frustrating not to be able to access any information, knowing that it was stored somewhere. The wonderful thing of course is that archives—whether state or Commonwealth, as in this bill—went a long way towards ensuring that once I had legal access I could find and understand my family history. Cutting to the chase and talking about the success of that reunion—and there are lots and lots of stories about reunions; mine was a particular focus given my circumstances—I note that I discovered that my mother was the oldest of 17 children. So you can start to do the numbers: I had many uncles and aunts younger than me and my grandmother had become a grandmother at 36—all those wonderful things. They could only have been confirmed by the fact that we had records. With regard to this particular bill, the amendments to continually enshrine the protection of and certainly the access to this information are really important.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And thankfully Raguse would be easier to find.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and politically it is probably a good thing as well. The wonderful thing, of course, is understanding my background, understanding my family history. More importantly, it comes down to issues that affect all adoptees. Today it is not a problem because most jurisdictions around the country changed these laws some time ago, but at the time my first son was born, when I was 24 years of age, my wife was able to give her whole family medical history, and when the specialist said, ‘Well, what’s your family history?’ I had to say, ‘I don’t know.’ The doctor was outraged by that—outraged at me almost for not knowing—and I explained that it was illegal for me to have access to that information. Again, the fact that that information had been archived and had been kept and that there were ways and means to access that information is very important.

Because of that I have some experience with the Commonwealth archives—and the state archives, but the Commonwealth archives particularly—but for people who have not delved into archives and do not have a lot of knowledge of that information trail, it is an overwhelming process to actually find a way through. I know that the Commonwealth archives at the time—I am talking about the late 80s—certainly were overwhelming, compared to how they are presented today. I know that because I have had more recent experience with the archives, although not for the purposes of adoption. The reality is that they are such an important resource and they need to be protected at all costs.

I was able to track the family history of my adoptive family, the Raguse family. They were French-German migrants back in the 1800s and I was able to track their arrival in Queensland through records from migration, ship logs et cetera. All that information exists. As for my natural family, once I had established that I was related to them, it turned out that my natural grandmother was the matriarch of the largest family in Queensland. There are something like 150 great-grandchildren, 50 grandchildren; it just goes on and on. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, with a name like Smith as a birth name and a name like Raguse I can tell you I am probably related to everybody!

Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even the member for Dunkley!

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure, somewhere along the line! Again, getting back to the point of this legislation and these amendments, it is so important that we can continue, even in situ, to make sure such records are protected.

From following the history of my natural family and my adoptive family, there are a whole range of strange circumstances, as you can imagine. My mother is in fact older than my grandmother—sorry; that would be a story! I mean my adoptive mother is a few years older than my natural grandmother. That adds some complications. So it is all very interesting when you start to look at your family history.

I have talked about my adoptive mother before in this House who at 87 years of age is still doing very well. She was in the women’s air force in World War II and, during the Battle of the Coral Sea, she was a spotter and plotter up in Townsville. She used to watch for enemy aircraft, spot them and report them. A lot of people do not know that Townsville, firstly, was bombed during the Second World War and, secondly, came to be a front line. Again, there was this gender thing where they always refused to acknowledge any women who served in those forces, unless they were nurses of course; any women who served in those women’s forces were never considered to be front-line. Because of my mother’s tenacity, I guess, if nothing else, and through archives—through my approach and my help, because I have become an expert in archives and delving through them—she finally proved through the RSL and to the Commonwealth government that Townsville was front-line. Lots and lots of other people benefited from the government’s recognition of that site as a war zone. So that is one example.

If you take then my natural family’s history, my natural grandfather was a Gallipoli veteran. Now, I know a lot of people claim that they have those connections. The wonderful thing about the Archives of course is that you can prove that. Interestingly enough, while I had gained access to that information some years ago, you might remember a few weeks ago there was a display here by the Archives where they had Harold Holt’s leather case that he left on the beach the day he disappeared—

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re not related to him?

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no. I haven’t looked that far! The point I was going to make was that on that same evening the National Archives provided electronic access—and the member for Dawson spoke about electronic record keeping—to those files.

The military records of the World War I veterans are quite amazing. To all those who may have believed my story was not quite true, there was my grandfather Ronald Ross Winks’s record in the Archives. He served in Gallipoli on the second wave. He had been wounded a number of times. Of course, when they were overseas on those commitments they would go to hospital and be sent back out to the front line. They would keep recycling them. He was there for four years certainly in Gallipoli and, as a survivor, moving on to other parts of that campaign.

Interestingly enough those records only exist because we have the process of archiving. If you consider when those records were collected, way back, there was already some sense and understanding of the importance that these records would have for our country. Again, that is a practical example of, and I should say a bit of a promotion and an ad for, the National Archives. All that information is available to all of us whether it is military history, migration, looking at ships’ logs and understanding what occurred—the Archives has it all.

In fact, I have on many occasions, as I said, spent many hours in archives looking for specific information, but every now and again you get carried away and tend to browse. The member for Dawson talked about newspapers. When you go back to certain events that occurred in history and you start to look, you can be carried away just simply understanding and reading that history. That information exists because archives do. It is there because someone took the time and carried out the processes that we see today to continue that preservation. It is certainly bipartisan; we all agree on the importance of this legislation. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this really is a passion of mine.

I hope that other generations that come after me get the same excitement and understanding. My life story has not finished yet, but if I ever have the need to find more information about my family, grandparents and great grandparents then I know that the information will be there. Other speakers mentioned the records of parliament. Being political junkies—as we must be because we are in this place—the very processes of parliament and all of the things that happen here today are archived. The fact is that everyone sitting in this room, in this chamber today, is part of history, and we will be there in some form, I am sure, in the very minutes that are kept and the very attendance in this room. In 50 years time we will be part of the Archives. So when I discover that I might have a long lost uncle or brother or someone sitting over there—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Billson interjecting

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

with the name Billson, I will get on the phone and say, ‘I’ll track him down.’ Why? Not only are the Archives part of our history but they also have current references to lots and lots of information. I have so many stories to talk about but I really do need to wrap this up.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Archives are a wonderful organisation. Even the film archives, as we all know, are just a wonderful capture of our history and there it is all visually. As I said, there are so many issues around the whole concept of archive keeping. I have given my personal experiences. Certainly, I would not be able to have the information I have today except for the fact that we have kept archives. They are essential in recording our history. Giving us access is very important, and identifying and allowing organisations to keep records in situ is a very good part of what this legislation allows us to do. I will not go through and number all my family members—there is an opportunity to do that—but, with 42 seconds, can I say for all of those reasons I commend this bill to the House.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—If you expect me to top that, you must be joking. Members have spoken about the Archives Amendment Bill 2008 and how it encapsulates one of the beauties of the National Archives and the vital role it performs in being a treasure trove and a warehouse of our nation’s history. I would like to thank the members for Sturt, Fairfax, Parramatta, Forde and Dawson for their contributions. I do not know if the member for Forde was actually putting in an application to become a member of the advisory council of the National Archives but I will take the opportunity to actually thank the council for performing the roles that they do. I would like to acknowledge in this place Mr Paul Santamaria, the chairman; Mr Peter Grant; Senator Kate Lundy; the Hon. Alex Somlyay, who obviously made a great contribution previously with respect to this legislation; Mr Ian Hancock; Mr Roland Perry; Mr Aladin Rahemtula; and also one particular individual whom I know quite well, Mr David Irvine, who will be a great addition to the advisory council. There is also Dr Dianne Snowden, Associate Professor Dr Helen Irving, Professor John Williams, Dr Mickey Dewar and Professor Mick Dodson. I think their efforts should be acknowledged.

We have heard personal stories and personal vignettes. I guess it is difficult to relate the Archives Amendment Bill 2008 given the emotion that has been put forward in some of the discussion about people’s family histories and what it means to them. It must be a great task for the National Archives to try to encapsulate that, to decide what should and should not be going in there. That task is performed by the director-general in most cases. It is a living history. It was said by the previous speaker, the shadow justice minister, Christopher Pyne, that many other countries do not have this facility and this particular capacity.

Even though this bill we are putting forward enjoys bipartisan support and is what would be categorised as a ‘dry bill’, we know it is a much deeper bill than that. It encapsulates our country’s history and it does that in a very safe way. We talk about what we might say to our children when they ask in 30 or 35 years time about the events of government and the great events of the day. We see those events through the prism of our daily experiences. We live them. But the Archives encapsulates them and keeps them as a record so our children and our children’s children can go back and look at decisions that have been made—and reporters can and historians can. I think that is a vital role and we should promote the National Archives. I have walked past it with Senator Faulkner on many occasions but have not been given the opportunity to go through. We will be making sure that I go into the National Archives very shortly to actually see firsthand the work that they do.

As I said, in many ways this is a technical bill dealing with the definitions of such terms as ‘material of the archives’, ‘care’ and ‘record’ and inserting an objects clause. All of us here know it is an important and long overdue measure, modernising the legislative framework governing one of our most important national institutions, the National Archives of Australia. Obviously, the previous government had dealt with the issue in 2006 but because of the proroguing of parliament had not been able to proceed with it.

The government administration of record keeping has changed enormously since the Archives Act was drafted in the 1970s and passed in 1983. We heard in a number of the contributions about the idea of the paperless office. I do not know if the paperless office has lived up to its early expectations, but we keep on being reassured that it is just around the corner. If you look at what is encapsulated in this, you will start reflecting on the paperless office! Nonetheless, today’s email traffic and websites and the technology allowing the digitisation of huge volumes of information are transforming the archival world, requiring new approaches to all stages of record keeping, from their creation, evaluation of their long-term significance and their preservation to, importantly, their long-term availability to the public.

Following on from the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission over a decade ago, this bill is a useful step to bring the Archives Act up to date, to modernise it and to enable Public Service agencies and the Archives to meet the challenges of our ever-changing technology. It is through the Archives that we know and understand our nation’s past. Through the Archives, future generations, our children, will be given an account of our activities and contributions. In reality, when we think about the National Archives, it is the ultimate accountability agency. With that, I thank members for their support for this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.