Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

My pleasure.

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Senator Bilyk, I would be happy to offer one for you, but it is not your time yet. Good luck to you. I hope your time does not come too soon at all. I come to the Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2014. I will share some observations that have been made not only this morning but at other times in relation to the bill that has been brought to the chamber by Senator Singh. I notice, as has already been stated, that this bill is similar to a bill that was introduced by the former government in 2013. We heard that the bill was passed by the House of Representatives on 6 June 2013 and there was a very brief inquiry undertaken by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I understand the inquiry was particularly brief and the committee reported on this bill on 24 June 2013.

Before I start my comments, I note the interjections across the floor from Senator Singh to Senator Fawcett. Senator Singh said that consultation happened for years and years. The fact of the matter is that, if that had happened, the bill would have been introduced to parliament by the former government before June last year. The facts just do not stack up.

The government, as has been appropriately recognised, support the essence of what is being sought here. What concerns us is the process. Process is incredibly important. That is what the Senate is all about. It is our responsibility to ensure that all proper processes, inquiries and considerations are undertaken so that, when legislation comes here and is finally passed or denied, it is done in the most authoritative way. That is the role of the Senate. We are very different to the House of Representatives in terms of our mandate. It is the mandate of the Senate to review all legislation so that we can ensure that, as Senator Fawcett so properly characterised, unintended consequences of legislation, even in the best interests of any parliament, do not have adverse effects, particularly on stakeholders. That is our primary concern here.

When I was looking at the detail of the explanatory memorandum that Senator Singh put together—and I commend her for that—I was reminded of a website that raised the issue of privacy concerns. There are many examples of overt breaches. One in Australia particularly concerned me. I think it was raised here earlier. It was the allegation of a privacy breach with the very large superannuation fund called Cbus. My concern is that this breach could have happened to any superannuation fund. If you think about the degree of private information we have to provide to all these funds, then every citizen would be concerned. In the case of Cbus, it was alleged that the personal information of hundreds—not just one or two but hundreds—of Cbus members was leaked to a union boss as part of an industrial campaign. Someone inside extracted the private details of individual members so that they could be contacted for an industrial campaign. Those allegations, I might add, were sent to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. Such was the significant nature of that breach. The allegations were forwarded not only to the Australian Federal Police but also to the Australian Privacy Commissioner. What was alleged at the time was that a senior employee of Cbus leaked names, birthdates, postal and email addresses, and even phone numbers—information that, I am sure you would agree, we would hope would remain private when we provide it to any superannuation fund and that it would be retained with that intent. But in this case, it was not. Superannuation contribution details of the more than 400 members were provided. Most of those people, though, were not members of any union and, in fact, they were not union members to the New South Wales Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.

It was sent to that union's branch secretary without their consent. It is the nature of these sorts of breaches, where they are direct and overt, that we have serious concerns, because we all know in this modern age just how much information we have put out there to providers. If you subscribe to a private health insurance provider, you have got to provide all sorts of very intimate details. It is information that we would not want to get out, because of the nature of it.

We have had conversations in this place many times about a national identity card. It could be used for all sorts of purposes. In fact, I have been involved with the current and ongoing JSCEM inquiry into the conduct of elections. One of the issues there is the validation of those turning up to vote, who are not required to provide a form of identity and that gives an opportunity for someone to vote in another person's name. Many, many examples have been raised in the inquiry where people use another name—perhaps not Senator Catryna Bilyk, but Catryna Bilyk, for example, in Tasmania—and they may vote in her name. In that case there is no way notionally to identify that the person is not Catryna Bilyk. There is nothing to attest to the fact that they are not that person.

Identification and the determination of registration and details—and all of that sort of thing—is really important in today's modern age. But what is more important—and I raised the national ID card—is that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to that ID card is the fact that people are concerned, and rightly so, about the way in which their personal details may be breached and misused. We have it here, as I said, and that was reported to the AFP and the Australian Privacy Commissioner. This is just one example in Australia where privacy details have been abused and used by an insider.

Yes, in essence, we support what this bill seeks to do. I have sat here in this chamber—well, I am going into my last week before I leave next week—for six years and watched as legislation has been passed without the proper scrutiny that it deserves. When that happens, you get unintended consequences. I can cite numerous examples of legislation that was rushed through without proper consideration. We have prosecuted it quite extensively, but it was legislation that had come through without being given proper consideration. There has been significant, significant consequences.