Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I speak on behalf of the Australian Democrats to the Census Information Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. This bill amends the Census and Statistics Act 1905 and the Archives Act 1983 with the purpose of ensuring the preservation of name-identified information collected from those households that provide explicit consent at the coming census this year and in all subsequent censuses. The information is intended to be used for future genealogical and other research following its retention for a closed-access period of 99 years.

The bill follows the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report called Saving our census and preserving our history. That report and that inquiry came out of, if you like, a lot of lobbying and agitation in various sections of the community for something along these lines. I should note the work of former Democrat senator Vicki Bourne from New South Wales in highlighting the views about the desirability of this bill. It is also worth noting the concerns directed at this bill by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, who are concerned that the retention of name-identified information may negatively affect the primary purpose of the census. Whilst the preservation of information for a century down the track for genealogical and other sorts of historical research is valuable, that is not of course the core purpose of the census. This is, if you like, an attempt to get a positive by-product out of the census for people 100 years down the track.

The core purpose of the census is the collection of accurate statistical data for today through the encouragement of completely full and open responses from the public. One of the concerns expressed by the ABS has been that, despite the giving of consent by individuals in relation to this information, answers provided may be less than comprehensive and totally complete if there is that seed in the backs of their minds—that is, that it is less than 100 per cent confidential—because in the past the identifying information was destroyed once the statistical data had been extracted. As consent will presumably not be limited to certain questions, there is the possibility that, while individuals will have no problem honestly answering some questions, they may object to, or even subconsciously resist, supplying complete information for others.

Another issue that may arise from an arrangement such as that provided for in this bill is consent. It has been suggested that the environment in which the census data is collected reduces concern about consent, as you must proactively tick the box to opt in. The Democrats recognise the government’s commitment to the requirement for explicit consent in relation to this bill, but we do call on the government, as part of this legislation and this debate, to ensure that the process for acquiring this consent be strictly controlled. Issues of voluntariness and coercion are always important where the provision of consent is required and the collection of data is not monitored.

At the very least, it is vital that individuals are fully informed of the consequences of providing their consent. The government has a responsibility to ensure that this information is provided and understood, not just because of some nice adherence to principles underlying this issue but because, as we believe, it is central to maximising the chances of getting the highest degree of accuracy and completeness in the information that people provide in the census. So extensive public education should be undertaken prior to the census to ensure fully informed consent is given. This is especially important for participants for whom English is not their first language.

The Democrats also think it is important to note concerns relating to the collection of information on those under the age of consent. We do recognise that it is difficult to legislate for future rights; however, the rights of children whose parents are providing the information on their behalf should not be dismissed as being of no consequence. Australians also need to always consider the ability of future legislation to override any commitment that the current government or parliament gives to protecting the relevant information for the 99-year closed-access period.

The Democrats have done work over a long time in the areas of privacy and the protection of personal information, and Senator Stott Despoja in particular has been heavily involved. To a large extent, I am presenting remarks also on her behalf today, as she is not able to be here, to ensure that some of the views she has about this legislation are put on the record as well.

The bill itself currently provides that future amendments to the act may allow for the release of this information. The proposed non-disclosure provision of the bill, section 19A, substitutes the previous section 19A, which restricts statisticians and officers from divulging, communicating or voluntarily providing such information to an agency during the closed-access period—that is, during that 99-year period—‘other than in accordance with this act’. The concern with those words is that they could potentially be used as a loophole for future use of the relevant information if the act itself is amended down the track. The wider issue about the sharing and exchanging of information between different government agencies for different purposes is of concern, of course, and always has been, but I think it is particularly relevant these days. I think any suggestion that this sort of information may end up being released for purposes other than what is specified in the legislation we are debating today is serious.

In saying that, I am not suggesting that there is a hidden agenda somewhere—next week or next month, or under the next government—to sneak through an amendment to this act that will allow all this information to be put in the back pocket of ASIO or anything like that. I am talking again about the importance of preserving the integrity of the core purpose of the census. If there is any perception of a lack of protection of this information for any purpose other than what is outlined here—the National Archives and the 99-year release period—then that could affect the completeness and accuracy of the information people provide. So I just wanted to clarify that the underlying rationale behind the concerns expressed is that, if there is any feeling amongst the community that this information is going to be preserved but there is no guarantee that it will not be passed on other than after the 99-year release period through the National Archives, people may be less inclined to give consent, which undermines the purpose of the census. Indeed, they may give consent but not give full information, which is even more of a concern because it undermines the overall accuracy of the census.

As referred to by Senator Sherry, there is an amendment circulated in the name of Senator Stott Despoja that seeks to address this issue. Given the numbers in the chamber and, indeed, given the issues that have been raised about technical aspects of this act and the status of the National Archives under the Archives Act, I might just signal to the minister that the intent behind the Democrat amendment, as I hope I have made clear, is to try to get absolute clarity for the general public that there is no loophole for any future government to exploit that would allow this information to be released for other purposes. I realise no government or parliament can guarantee 100 per cent the actions of any future government or parliament, but what I might do is put a question along these lines to the minister, in the committee stage of the debate, to see if we can get a clearer commitment and statement from the government that any use or release of this information down the track under the provisions of the act would not be for anything other than the general intention outlined in the explanatory memorandum and the government’s statements surrounding this legislation.

It is also relevant to mention the relationship between this bill and privacy concerns surrounding a proposal by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to create a statistical longitudinal census data set or SLCD. That proposal aims to link future census data in one database. In one sense, that is separate and it is still being developed but if you link the sorts of privacy issues that the Democrats have raised today with regard to this legislation with the proposal of the longitudinal census data set and you combine those two potential concerns then it multiplies as well. I think it is important to emphasise the overall thrust and intent of what is being done here. As I said, it is something which many have called for—indeed, Senator Vicki Bourne called for it—in the past and which will be of significant value to historians many years hence.

Ninety-nine years does seem a fair way away. It is perhaps something that all of us here do not have to worry about, although, as I think I heard Senator Sherry say in a totally different debate once upon a time, for children born these days, such as his daughter, there is a fair prospect that they will live to 100. So it is quite possible that this legislation will be relevant for our children if not for ourselves, even if 99 years does seem a long time away. It is in that context that we should recognise that there is a potential for the valuable intent of this legislation and of course the crucial importance of the census to be undermined if there is any perception that the information, now that it is going to be preserved, could somehow or other be authorised to be accessed for purposes that people would be less comfortable with. Hopefully I have made that reasonably clear in outlining some of the issues that this legislation brings up. I flag again that, rather than proceed with the amendment, I would rather ask a question or two and get a clarification or commitment from the minister during the committee stage of the debate about the concerns that we have raised.