Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Our concern really is with the definition provided for sensitive information as the minister has outlined. We certainly would not want to prejudice a person’s safety, but the fact is that the definition is wider than that used in the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 because it includes information that could prejudice a person’s reputation. I suspect that is quite an important grey area, but there would no doubt be information that could prejudice a person’s reputation if that person was acting poorly. You probably would want that information to come forward.

Proposed sections 8(2) and 9(2) of the bill provide that the CEO of the ACC or the Commissioner of the AFP may refuse such a request for disclosure on the grounds that the requested information is sensitive. We do not think it is necessary to include within the definition of sensitive information, information that could prejudice a person’s reputation. Otherwise we are going to exclude potentially a very broad range of material. Parliamentary committees are used to dealing with sensitive information, and they have procedures in place to deal with such information. For example, we can receive information in private session, expunge any such information from the transcript of evidence and forbid publication of the evidence. I think all of us in here are fairly familiar with the fact that committees can do that and that it is part of the normal working role of the committee.

On occasions it is the role of the committee to make judgments as to an individual’s conduct in its role to oversee and to improve the functioning of an agency. It is not to protect individual’s reputations if they have made poor judgments. Surely, that is what the existence of these committees are, in part, for. We are not talking about witch-hunts here. These committees should potentially be able to hurt people’s feelings if they have been acting poorly. These are people in positions of enormous responsibility, acting without a great deal of public oversight. This committee, which we acknowledge is a very important new proposition and innovation of the government’s, needs to be able to do its work effectively and not have this information excluded on the ground that somebody’s reputation might be harmed, if that person’s reputation is going to be harmed as a genuine consequence of actions or poor judgments that they have made.