Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

Yesterday, in answer to a question from Senator Paterson, the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash, claimed that in a supplementary budget estimates hearing on 23 October 2014 I asked questions with the intention of defending the conduct of Mr Luke Collier and defending criminals. The minister misrepresented the purpose of my questions on that day. To the best of my knowledge, I have never met Mr Collier. His conduct has been reprehensible. I have never defended Mr Collier or his conduct, and I never will. I have never defended criminals, and my record in public life demonstrates this.

The questions I asked in the estimates hearing were not about Mr Collier's conduct but whether or not Fair Work Building and Construction and its director, Mr Hadgkiss, had breached their obligations under the Privacy Act by publishing Mr Collier's criminal history in a media release on 8 October 2014. No matter who they are and what their personal history may be, citizens of this country have a right to the protection of the law. That includes the protections provided under the Privacy Act 1988. If it appears that a Commonwealth agency has trampled illegal protections to which a person is entitled, then it is my duty as a senator to ensure that the agency is held to account.

Following what I consider to be an unsatisfactory answer given by Mr Hadgkiss at the estimates hearing and on notice, I wrote to the Privacy Commissioner on 5 February 2015 asking that he investigate Fair Work Building and Construction's personal information handling practices and whether the publication of Mr Collier's personal information in a media release was for an authorised purpose. In a letter dated 20 February 2015, the Privacy Commissioner advised me that he would not open a commissioner initiated investigation or conduct an assessment of the matter, but he did indicate:

It appears likely that the disclosure in the media release was for a secondary purpose.

Whether the secondary purpose was authorised by the law would depend on the facts of the particular case and whether the disclosure was authorised by the Fair Work Building and Construction legislation. In order for the matter to be taken any further, it would be up to Mr Collier to take it further. I don't care one way or the other whether he does so.