Senator COONAN (3:31 PM) —There has been a very wide ranging debate on the motion to take note of answers this afternoon, and it has dealt with a number of topics from secrecy and public interest immunity to Acxiom database, the production of documents relating to the MRI matter, and Senator Newman and her working documents. What has been said is that the information has been confidential and that it is likely to prejudice ongoing inquiries, but it does raise a very important principle. Public interest immunity is a matter that continually comes up in looking at documents produced for parliament and has done over the past couple of decades. It does require the reconciliation of two apparently irreconcilable issues of high policy.

On the one hand, the principle of public policy which calls for recognition is the requirement that the parliament have access to all or any information of whatever kind which will enable it to discharge its obligations. After all, openness in government is essential to ensure representative democracy and accountable government. But this is not a complete open slather. On the other hand stands the equally important doctrine of ministerial responsibility and accountability, and a fundamental feature of responsible government is that others have to deal with government confident in the knowledge that at least some of their matters that are commercially or otherwise sensitive can be kept confidential.

Something that is completely overlooked when you have one of these debates is the risk to the public interest when it is simply left up to the political process to protect confidentiality. Politicians have no neutral evaluator role at all; they are not judges and they are not constrained in any way to conduct the balancing exercise by reference to well defined principles. Obviously, while political pressure can be brought to bear, we do have to bear in mind that you cannot underrate the importance of confidentiality in communications with government and in the decision making process. I am not mounting a play for secrecy—far from it—but those dealing with government should be able to do so with complete openness and frankness, secure in the knowledge that properly defined circumstances will allow commercially sensitive information and privacy to be protected. That does not seem to be something that comes to mind when these sorts of debates and slanging matches go across the chamber. What is the greater public interest here?

Another matter that was brought up at some length by Senator Lundy was the so-called alarm at the announcement of the establishment of the Acxiom database and the alleged threat to privacy. This is also a bit of a furphy, because the government plans to introduce a bill to amend the Privacy Act 1988, and the amendments will establish a co-regulatory framework for the protection of personal data in the private sector, and industry groups will be encouraged to develop codes of conduct for the management of personal information using the Privacy Commissioner's information privacy principles. Where a code of conduct is absent, a default legislative framework will apply.

It is important that those listening to this debate understand that the legislation will specifically apply to the collection, storage, use and disclosure of personal information. The national privacy principles have provided a default framework for the handling of personal information. There are 10 of those, and the private sector will be required to follow these standards or have its own codes that provide as much protection as the policy principles approved by the Privacy Commissioner. No-one need have any concern that there will be uncontrolled use of personal data.

If you really look at secrecy, you just have to look at what the previous Labor government did. Isn't the Beazley black hole perhaps the biggest secret of all that we have seen in this nation? If you look at the way the Labor Party have consistently withheld information on the grounds of some totally undefined principle, you can have no fear. (Time expired)

Question resolved in the affirmative.