Clendon David: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:245. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to add a few comments to those made by my colleague Jan Logie. The Greens are not supporting the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill for reasons that Jan has partly outlined— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that he must use the member’s full name in the House or their title. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: My apologies; indeed yes. This legislation that is being debated to be amended is 20-year-old legislation. It was enacted in 1993—not a terribly long time ago for some of us but nevertheless a very different world. Computers were relatively scarce. The idea of home computing was much less commonplace than it is now. Mobile phones were still relatively novel. They were used for making and receiving telephone calls and that was about the extent of it. We are in a very different context in terms of technology. To some extent at that time and prior to that our privacy was largely protected or considerably protected by the limitations of the storage mechanisms available—paper index cards and filing cabinets. There was not the ability or there was much less of an ability to share information to steal it to take it either rightly or wrongly. Given that this legislation is 20 years old there has been a remarkable increase in technology around information data-sharing. We do not deny the need for change. We are not resistant to change in itself; we simply do not see that the proposals in this amendment bill are those that will move us to where we want to be. 
The available technology clearly is a two-edged sword. We can acquire information we can store it we can analyse it and we can share it. Massive amounts of information can be moved around almost in a heartbeat virtually with no time delay. Mechanisms for managing that data for protecting it and for monitoring its use in an ethical and appropriate way are arguably considerably behind our technical ability to work with it. That is I think the dilemma that we are confronting here. 
The second dilemma in a sense has been perhaps referred to by the previous speaker as something of a cultural split in terms of electronic data and making it available. I would suspect that those of my generation guard our privacy our information quite jealously. We want to know why and for what purpose people might want information from us. At the other end of the spectrum I think the younger generation—what you might casually or perhaps in a very generalist way call the “Facebook generation”—think nothing of putting very large amounts of personal data into the public domain. But I think personally a healthy dose of cynicism injected into that generation might do some good in that sense. Clearly it is much easier to put information out there than it is to retrieve it. 
To return to the bill the purpose of the bill in a sense is not the core problem for the Greens. We have difficulty with it because we recognise the shortcomings. One example that has been pointed out to me is the inability of the Family Court to retrieve or to have information shared that might be available at the District Court. This can create difficulties and we could improve that situation arguably. We do see that there are situations where data sharing—information sharing—could enable better outcomes could be appropriate ethical and serve public good.  
However the mechanism chosen this proposed amendment legislation we do not see as the appropriate one. It is largely as my colleague spoke to earlier that there is a lack of checks and balances within this legislation. I think much has been made of the fact that the Privacy Commissioner would need to be involved in the preparation and the process of delivering the Orders in Council. But the commissioner’s report or feedback would have no binding effect on anything that was produced. It is purely a consultative mechanism; it is not one that gives us any confidence that the executive—any executive—might not overstretch the mark and use these mechanisms in a way that would not be appropriate that would not be suitably cognisant of the absolute right of people to maintain their privacy. So we are not persuaded by this bill. We will oppose it. We look forward to the select committee. Thank you.