Senator Andrew Bartlett
Portfolio: Attorney Generals
| Dated: 27 Feb 2006
Location: Parliament
|
Census Information Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 - Second Reading and In Committee |
I speak on behalf of the Australian Democrats to the Census Information Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. This bill amends the Census and Statistics Act 1905 and the Archives Act 1983 with the purpose of ensuring the preservation of name-identified information collected from those households that provide explicit consent at the coming census this year and in all subsequent censuses. The information is intended to be used for future genealogical and other research following its retention for a closed access period of 99 years.
The bill follows the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report called Saving our census and preserving our history. That report and that inquiry came out of, if you like, a lot of lobbying and agitation in various sections of the community for something along these lines. I should note the work of former Democrat senator Vicki Bourne from New South Wales in highlighting the views about the desirability of this bill. It is also worth noting the concerns directed at this bill by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, who are concerned that the retention of name-identified information may negatively affect the primary purpose of the census. Whilst the preservation of information for a century down the track for genealogical and other sorts of historical research is valuable, that is not of course the core purpose of the census. This is, if you like, an attempt to get a positive by-product out of the census for people 100 years down the track.
The core purpose of the census is the collection of accurate statistical data for today through the encouragement of completely full and open responses from the public. One of the concerns expressed by the ABS has been that, despite the giving of consent by individuals in relation to this information, answers provided may be less than comprehensive and totally complete if there is that seed in the backs of their mindsthat it is less than 100 per cent confidential or, as has occurred in the past, the identifying information would be destroyed once the statistical data had been extracted. As consent will presumably not be limited to certain questions, there is the possibility that, while individuals will have no problem honestly answering some questions, they may object to, or even subconsciously resist, supplying complete information for others.
Another issue that may arise from an arrangement such as that provided for in this bill is consent. It has been suggested that the environment in which the census data is collected reduces concern about consent, as you must proactively tick the box to opt in. The Democrats recognise the governments commitment to the requirement for explicit consent in relation to this bill, but we do call on the government, as part of this legislation and this debate, to ensure that the process for acquiring this consent be strictly controlled. Issues of voluntariness and coercion are always important where the provision of consent is required and the collection of data is not monitored.
At the very least, it is vital that individuals are fully informed of the consequences of providing their consent. The government has a responsibility to ensure that this information is provided and understood, not just because of some nice adherence to principles underlying this issue but because, as we believe, it is central to maximising the chances of getting the highest degree of accuracy and completeness in the information that people provide in the census.
So extensive public education should be undertaken prior to the census, to ensure fully informed consent is given. This is especially important for participants for whom English is not their first language.
The Democrats also think it is important to note concerns relating to the collection of information on those under the age of consent. We do recognise that it is difficult to legislate for future rights; however, the rights of children whose parents are providing the information on their behalf should not be dismissed as being of no consequence. Australians also need to always consider the ability of future legislation to override any commitment that the current government or parliament gives to protecting the relevant information for the 99-year closed-access period.
The Democrats have done work over a long time in the areas of privacy and the protection of personal information, and Senator Stott Despoja in particular has been heavily involved. To a large extent, I am presenting remarks also on her behalf today, as she is not able to be here, to ensure that some of the views she has about this legislation are put on the record as well.
The bill itself currently provides that future amendments to the act may allow for the release of this information. The proposed non-disclosure provision of the bill, section 19A, substitutes the previous section 19A, which restricts statisticians and officers from divulging, communicating or voluntarily providing such information to an agency during the closed-access periodthat is, during that 99-year periodother than in accordance with this act. The concern with those words is that they could potentially be used as a loophole for future use of the relevant information if the act itself is amended down the track.
The wider issue about the sharing and exchanging of information between different government agencies for different purposes is of concern, of course, and always has been, but I think it is particularly relevant these days. I think any suggestion that this sort of information may end up being released for purposes other than what is specified in the legislation we are debating today is serious.
In saying that, I am not suggesting that there is a hidden agenda somewherenext week or next month, or under the next governmentto sneak through an amendment to this act that will allow all this information to be put in the back pocket of ASIO or anything like that. I am talking again about the importance of preserving the integrity of the core purpose of the census. If there is any perception of a lack of protection of this information for any purpose other than what is outlined here, the National Archives and the 99-year release period, then that could affect the completeness and accuracy of the information people provide. So I just wanted to clarify that the underlying rationale behind the concerns expressed is that, if there is any feeling amongst the community that this information is going to be preserved but there is no guarantee that it will not be passed on other than after the 99-year release period through the National Archives, then people may be less inclined to give consent, which undermines the purpose of the census. Indeed, they may give consent but not give full information, which is even more of a concern because it undermines the overall accuracy of the census.
As referred to by Senator Sherry, there is an amendment circulated in the name of Senator Stott Despoja that seeks to address this issue. Given the numbers in the chamber and, indeed, given the issues that have been raised about technical aspects of this act and the status of the National Archives under the Archives Act, I might just signal to the minister that the intent behind the Democrat amendment, as I hope I have made clear, is to try to get absolute clarity for the general public that there is no loophole for any future government to exploit that would allow this information to be released for other purposes.
I realise no government or parliament can guarantee 100 per cent the actions of any future government or parliament, but what I might do is put a question along these lines to the minister, in the committee stage of the debate, to see if we can get a clearer commitment and statement from the government that any use or release of this information down the track under the provisions of the act would not be for anything other than the general intention outlined in the explanatory memorandum and the governments statements surrounding this legislation.
It is also relevant to mention the relationship between this bill and privacy concerns surrounding a proposal by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to create a statistical longitudinal census data set or SLCD. That proposal aims to link future census data in one database.
In one sense, that is separate and it is still being developed but if you link the sorts of privacy issues that the Democrats have raised today with regard to this legislation with the proposal of the longitudinal census data set and you combine those two potential concerns then it multiplies as well. I think it is important to emphasise the overall thrust and intent of what is being done here. As I said, it is something which many have called forindeed, Senator Vicki Bourne called for itin the past and which will be of significant value to historians many years hence.
Ninety-nine years does seem a fair way away. It is perhaps something that all of us here do not have to worry about, although, as I think I heard Senator Sherry say in a totally different debate once upon a time, for children born these days, such as his daughter, there is a fair prospect that they will live to 100. So it is quite possible that this legislation will be relevant for our children if not for ourselves, even if 99 years does seem a long time away. It is in that context that we should recognise that there is a potential for the valuable intent of this legislation and of course the crucial importance of the census to be undermined if there is any perception that the information, now that it is going to be preserved, could somehow or other be authorised to be accessed for purposes that people would be less comfortable with. Hopefully I have made that reasonably clear in outlining some of the issues that this legislation brings up. I flag again that, rather than proceed with the amendment, I would rather ask a question or two and get a clarification or commitment from the minister during the committee stage of the debate about the concerns that we have raised.
CENSUS INFORMATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2005
In Committee
here is an amendment circulated in the name of Senator Stott Despoja, and I will not be proceeding with that. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration for his assurance. I realise that he cannot bind the action of every single government and parliament for the next 99 years with regard to what they might do. The parliamentary secretary is powerful but not that powerful. I think that the clarification he has given about the restrictions on how the information can be used—or, more importantly, cannot be used—is worth while. The Democrats are keen to ensure that there is absolutely minimal prospect of the information that is retained by consent being used by anybody other than the National Archives or for any purpose other than what has clearly been outlined. So I thank the parliamentary secretary for his words.
One of the purposes of the census that is being collected later this year is to determine official population estimates. That information does get used to allocate Commonwealth funds to state, territory and local governments. That is a wider issue. As a Queenslander whose funds from the federal level are currently under threat by grasping southerners trying to grab money away from us, I should say that it is a worthwhile reminder for all of us to do all we can to encourage people in our own states to fill in the census form. It can add up to an extra few dollars and cents towards services in our own states. It is a reminder of the significant impact that people filling out the census fully can have on a whole range of other issues.
I also take the opportunity, having been reminded by the parliamentary secretary’s comments, to mention the very important work of the enormous number of people who work as census collectors during this period. I have a recollection of following at my mother’s heels, when I was much, much smaller, when she was a collector back in about 1971. It is a very important task, and the more help they have in encouraging and assuring people that there is no risk in filling out the forms and no danger of the information being misused—whether it be tomorrow or in 98 years time—then the better statistics we will get when the census forms are filled out.
CENSUS INFORMATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2005
In Committee
I did have two comments lined up for the Democrats amendment which has not been moved. The thrust of what Senator Nettle wanted to put forward is worth while to record, but, as the parliamentary secretary in this place said, there is a process for having it potentially considered for the next census, in 2011. Another issue which I want to put on the record for future census purposes—and it is also relevant for this census—is the issue of gender. The census has always signalled people to tick a box to indicate whether they are male or female. There is now a greater recognition of a group in the community—often called the intersex community—who do not consider themselves to be either male or female. I think that issue could also be considered for inclusion on the next census.
I also note that I saw some correspondence between a member of the community and the ABS surrounding that specific issue. It indicated that the ABS had advised that people who did believe it would be inaccurate to tick either the male or female box could write down an answer that met their own view about their gender. I understand that it is an accurate thing to do, for a person to indicate their view of themselves as an intersex person, and that it does not invalidate an answer. I think it is worth putting that on the record, because it is a much larger number of people in the community than is often assumed, from the invisibility of that topic until quite recently.
I was also disappointed in the comments of the parliamentary secretary in the other place, Mr Pearce, in a media release he put out surrounding the Greens media release. I am sure he thought it was very witty to make a play on the word ‘fairies’ and to make suggestions about different forms of sexuality, but I thought it was less than appropriate and some people took offence from it. We can all get a bit carried with taking offence about everything and we need to recognise the spirit in which comments are put forward, but my view is that the comments of Mr Pearce in the media release expressed contempt about people of minority sexualities.
I think it was inappropriate and I would suggest he might want to reconsider that with future media statements.
I am not sure if the Democrats would have supported the proposed amendment, for the reasons outlined, but I do think they are issues that are worth considering for future censuses. I believe the issue of gender identity is also one that needs to be considered for future statistical purposes when we do have the census collection. Census collection and statistical information are not part of the history wars, the ideological wars or anything else; they are about getting as accurate a snapshot as possible of the full diversity of the Australian community. I think we would have a more accurate reflection if some of those questions were contained in future censuses. But I realise it is a difficult task designing census questions in a way that gets people to understand and answer the questions. That is something that obviously can be considered over the next few years before the next census is finalised.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
|
Information provided by the Australian Parliamentary Library.
This document is of Draft Status
|
|
