Senator STOTT DESPOJA (Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats) (5:39 PM) —I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats to speak on the Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Bill 1998. The Democrats, as the chamber would be aware, have a long history of raising issues in this place pertaining to privacy. It is a tradition and debate that my predecessors, including former Senators Michael Macklin, Janine Haines and Don Chipp, were all active in. They have lamented, while in parliament and since, that they have not seen more progress in privacy legislation in Australia, and in particular the legislation which Senator Bolkus referred to in his remarks—that is, the idea of extending privacy laws to the private sector.

We are very much aware of what has happened in the last couple of years and the fact that this government did make a promise as it went into the 1996 federal election campaign that it would extend privacy to the private sector. That decision was pretty much overturned by the Prime Minister, or at least his statements certainly ran contrary to a commitment given in, I think, September 1996 by the Attorney-General. Nevertheless, we have seen some progress. At least there has been talk of legislation. Draft guidelines, if you like, were circulated as of December last year and the Democrats, like the Labor Party, look forward to scrutinising the legislation when it comes before us in this place.

We have seen much action in this place on the discussion about privacy laws generally, but specifically the extension of privacy laws to the private sector. We have had a reference to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, a committee inquiry and reports as a consequence of that inquiry by the committee. We have a bill before us today that, I do acknowledge, does not necessarily further the privacy debate in a significant way, but nonetheless the Democrats hope to see the changes before us in a positive context. We hope these changes will lead to improved privacy protection in Australia and, for that reason, we will also support the legislation before us.

The Democrats have long argued that we need clearly stated and legislated complaints, investigation and enforcement mechanisms that involve the Privacy Commissioner and which are adequate to ensure an independent and transparent mechanism to give consumers the certainty and the confidence that we believe their personal information requires. Consumers in our society have a right to know that their personal information is safe.

The privacy amendment bill before us works towards this goal, we hope, by furthering in some respects the stature and perhaps the autonomy of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. So I am hopeful that it will achieve what the government has said that it would achieve. In that respect, it is good to see an air of cross-party support for this legislation.

The bill, as we know, separates the Office of the Privacy Commissioner from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The bill creates an office of the Privacy Commissioner independent of HREOC, allowing the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to act and operate as the head of their own department and to employ staff. I understand that under current arrangements staff are employed by the commission.

I understand the references Senator Bolkus made in his comments, his concerns relating to this decision originally. We shared and articulated some of the concerns that he had. Similarly, we are guided very much by the comments from HREOC and of course from the Privacy Commissioner. I note that the Privacy Commissioner and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission support this legislation. HREOC assures us that this bill will not require any additional funding; it will not be an additional strain on the already strained finances of the commission—as the commission's funding has been reduced. Neither HREOC nor the Privacy Commissioner expect to be financially disadvantaged by the split, and that is certainly something that we hope to hold the government to.

It is worth noting again the cuts that have been made to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The commission's $20.5 million funding in the year 1996-97 was reduced to $17.9 million in 1997-98, $12.3 million in 1998-99, and $10.7 million per annum for 1999-2002. That is effectively a halving of the commission's budget under this government. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner was created under the Privacy Act with the functions vested in the office rather than in the commission. Since the act's introduction in 1988, the Privacy Commissioner's jurisdictions have proliferated—and Senator Bolkus referred to keeping pace or keeping up with increasing privacy needs as a result of technological and other advancements. Data matching and the growth in telecommunications technology and online services have all extended the commissioner's functions under the Telecommunications Act 1997 with respect to records by telecommunications carriers, carriage service providers and similar regarding the disclosure of consumer information. So all these have added to the work for privacy commissioners in Australia. Additionally, the Commonwealth Spent Convictions Scheme and the Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme all have privacy guidelines.

I support the notion that the expansion of the Privacy Commissioner's functions necessitates reform in order to provide the required public profile and stature to address the rapidly expanding consumer needs in this area. Furthermore, the Privacy Commissioner's functions are likely to be further expanded if the government introduces legislation to extend privacy to the private sector. As I said earlier, that is a longstanding policy of the Democrats. I know that during my time we have introduced a private member's bill to fulfil the election promise that the government made in 1996. We withdrew that in good faith leading up to the process of consultations around the national privacy principles, and we are very hopeful, as I say, of seeing that the legislation promised by the government is an effective and, we would hope, uniform—so clearly national—but enforceable privacy regime. If this bill in any way facilitates that possibility of enforceable privacy rights in the private sector, that certainly is an added reason for supporting it.

As we know, privacy is a ubiquitous issue; it spans many areas of public life. It is a basic right which deserves nothing less than transparent and enforceable protection—specifically noted in the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It is a fundamental principle that a person has a right to know what personal information is held about them and that, if that information is lawfully held, the information is correct. The International Charter of Civil and Political Rights, article 17, provides:

or her, I presume—

privacy.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12, provides:

or her—

privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his—

or her—

honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Issues pertaining to this basic right can only proliferate further in the oncoming debate—I guess it is a debate we have yet to have in the parliament—with the finalisation in this decade of the human genome project, the emerging global digital economy and an information technology society.

In relation to the issue of privacy of the most sensitive information that we have—that is, our basic genetic make-up, so in relation to genetic privacy—I would like to bring the Senate's attention to a decision that was made last week by President Bill Clinton, President of the United States. He made an announcement and signed an executive order banning American federal agencies from genetic discrimination against workers. I really hope that this international stand will provide impetus for action in Australia. I note that where this was carried in some media outlets last week there was comment from various members of state parliaments. I note that in my home state of South Australia the Attorney-General acknowledged in the newspaper that this is a good issue and that maybe we should look into it. Indeed, we should, but just not on a state and territory level in much the same way that we do not necessarily simply want a mishmash of state and territory legislation relating to extension of privacy laws to the private sector. We need national, uniform laws, and we certainly need laws in relation to the issue of genetic privacy and non-discrimination. The President's decision means that employers and other workers will not be able to abuse advances in medical research. Unfortunately, despite the Democrats' keen efforts to have these issues debated and addressed, we have not made any such move to ban similar discrimination in Australia.

It has been close to 12 months since the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee recommended further examination on the issues of genetic discrimination and privacy and the possibility of creating a national working party to address them. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I implore those government members to investigate this issue because now that we have international standards—certainly an American decision—we should be looking, if not to match them, to have better and more workable laws in this area. So I hope that some of the recommendations of that Senate committee will be looked into. It certainly recommended the development of appropriate amendments to existing legislation in relation to genetic privacy and discrimination. I think we are still awaiting such action, unless something has been happening behind the scenes that we are not aware of. I think it would be a great opportunity to start debating these issues as we are in a new century, approaching a new millennium, and technological advances are taking place at great pace.

It is interesting to note in the media the reactions by members of the community to the President's announcement. Time and time again, people have been asking what Australia is doing about this issue and whether anyone has thought about the privacy implications of these emerging technologies. It is not that people are not thinking about them, because there are academics, doctors and indeed political parties like the Democrats who are considering these issues. We have considered the need for strong, transparent and comprehensive privacy protection regimes that are responsive to the knowledge and the technologies of the 21st century. But it does seem to be a case of people not understanding, not wanting to know or governments not listening and taking a proactive role in privacy protection.

This bill will, I hope, allow the Privacy Commissioner and the office to increase the impact of their work. I hope that at some point in the future we can perhaps give them the appropriate resources to cope with the expanding needs of that office. I also hope that the government will look more closely at the expanding needs for privacy legislation in this country. Once again, I urge the parliament to deal as swiftly as possible with the issue of extending privacy laws to the private sector—something that the Democrats called for during the period of the ALP government, and I believe we had support from the then opposition. With this government, we have called for similar measures. I hope that this government will be the government to produce them and will do so with—again, I hope—an air of cross-party support, provided that the legislation is uniform, enforceable and meets with those international declarations to which I referred.