Page 1570 - Week 05 - Thursday, 15 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is where my only real hesitation with the bill lies. In my view, there is potential for considerable “he said, she said” disputes that involve information relating to opinion or information that is not recorded in material form. This could tie up the courts, principally because the courts comprise the only means of challenge available to the complainant. I call on the government to monitor this potential and, in the event that it becomes problematic, take steps to provide a more definitive process.
In the bill, there are additional protections for sensitive information such as information on racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, memberships, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual orientations and practices, or criminal record.
An important and intentional omission from the bill relates to the question of how to deal with a statutory cause of action for serious invasions of privacy. I note from the Attorney-General’s presentation speech that the Australian Law Reform Commission will report to the commonwealth Attorney-General on this matter in June 2014. We look forward to further statements from the Attorney-General on this subject at a later time.
Finally, the bill establishes the information privacy commissioner. I understand it is contemplated that at this stage the commonwealth commissioner will perform this role. I assume this will attract a cost, and I will look forward to the government’s announcement in regard to this during the budget sitting in a couple of weeks. I acknowledge, however, that the commonwealth has announced that it intends to disband the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Reading the commissioner’s website, I note that there are plans to provide the services in a different form, so this may well impact on the ACT government’s intentions. I will look forward to further announcement from the Attorney-General in this regard.
I note that on 1 April last the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety, in its legislative scrutiny role, released its report carrying comment on this bill. It was not until yesterday afternoon, some six weeks later, that the Attorney-General issued his response to those comments. Whilst I consider that the response does answer the committee’s concerns in a satisfactory way, it is most unsatisfactory that it should take so long, giving members of this place less than 24 hours to consider it. The Attorney-General needs to be more timely and efficient in this respect.
This law will provide some certainty for the people of the ACT about the way in which the government handles personal information it gathers. I have some practical concerns with it, but on the whole it is a positive step. We will be supporting this legislation.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.48): I will be agreeing in principle to the Information Privacy Bill today, which for the first time introduces ACT-specific privacy principles and sets up a framework for appointing an ACT privacy commissioner.
Currently the commonwealth Privacy Act applies in the ACT, although it is a version of that act from 1994, which of course is now somewhat out of date. The new
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video